From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 16:08:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA17492; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801072108.QAA17492@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #1 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 16:08:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Better Late Than Never: Another Year Underway (TELECOM Digest Editor) Online Conference: RBOCs Into Long Distance? (Adam Gaffin) New Minnesota Area Code (Tad Cook) US West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network (Tad Cook) CIUG PPP Interoperability Workshop (Bob Larribeau) Book Review: "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone (Rob Slade) 55th UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin) Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (Declan McCullagh) Everything Happened Around the Switchboard (Pat O'Neil) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:03:47 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Better Late than Never: Another Year Underway Yes, I know I said last Wednesday night that I would be back with the first issue of the new year on Monday ... but then some funny things happened on the way to the forum ... By the way, I still do not have all the new entries, etc, for the web page installed but I thought I better get an issue or two of the Digest out before massis.lcs.mit.edu either (a) gets its file system full again or (b) simply shuts down and blocks off the outside world again ... I'll try to do the web stuff today and Thursday, I promise. Thursday (New Year's Day) and Friday I was very sick with some sort of flu or virus from a bad cold. My energy level was zero. Saturday and Sunday I was called out of town to a funeral. Sunday night I had a marathon session starting about 6 pm and running through 615 am Monday morning loading many new files into the archives and updating the index of subjects for the past year. Off to bed, only to wake up later Monday and try to get an issue of the Digest out, to find out that the massis 'write system is full' and no way to do anything on line and too late to reach anyone at MIT. Tuesday I was able to reach a couple admins there who very promptly did give massis a very good cleaning out and rebooted it -- it had been up for 61 days at that point. Great, now I can work on the Digest -- I thought -- only to get on line for all of five minutes Tuesday night and have the thing crash again. So not only could I not work on the Digest, I could not do anyting on the web pages either ... :( This brings us to Wednesday morning -- the present time -- and I am starting to get a little fidgity and itchy. It is time to start 1998 for sure, and even the flu bug or whatever that has pestered me for a few days is now apparently gone. So welcome to another year of TELECOM Digest. There are lots of new messages waiting in the queue, and we'll share them together over the next couple of days. In the meantime you should have received *two* special mailings in the past couple days. One was an updated catalog of the Telecom Archives, and the other was a HUGE file containing an index of the authors and subjects which have appeared here over the past three years, January 1995 through December, 1997. If you somehow did not get the latter file and want it, you casn pull it using FTP or the web from the archives. Happy New Year! PAT ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Online Conference: RBOCs Into Long Distance? Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 17:13:44 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Network World Fusion next week (1/12) sponsors a threaded discussion on one of the more contentious questions in telecommunications today: Whether RBOCs should be allowed into the long distance market. Randy L. New, vice president of legislative implementation for BellSouth Corp. and C.K. Casteel, regional executive of public policy, MCI Telecommunications Corp. will debate the question with each other and with users. This week, you can see their opening position papers along with background articles. We've also opened up the conference area early so that folks can discuss the ramifications of last week's federal court ruling on RBOC long-distance services. The URL: http://www.nwfusion.com/forum/ld.html If you haven't used NWFusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 "We are becoming a nation of 'rutabaga men'" - Boston Globe ------------------------------ Subject: New Minnesota Area Code Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:06:16 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Minnesota Area Code for St. Paul, Suburbs Takes Effect in July By Martin J. Moylan, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 6--Here are three digitqs residents of the eastern metropolitan Twin Cities should memorize and pass along if they want to stay in touch with the rest of Minnesota and the world: 6-5-1. That's the new area code for St. Paul and other points east now assigned to the 612 area code. They're scheduled to start using 651 in July. Bellcore, a telecommunications organization that does research for the Baby Bells, announced the code assignment Monday. During a "grace period" from July 1998 to January 1999, calls between eastern and western metropolitan communities will go through with -or without -- callers dialing an area code. But starting in January 1999, those calls will require 10 digits -the appropriate area code plus a seven-digit telephone number. Ten-digit dialing will not incur toll charges. Calls that are toll-free now will remain toll-free after the area code split. Calls within each of the two metropolitan area codes will require only the usual seven digits. The dividing line between the 612 and 651 area codes runs north to south. St. Paul, Roseville, New Brighton, Arden Hills, Lino Lakes, Forest Lake, Mendota Heights, Eagan, Rosemount, Farmington and other points east get 651. Minneapolis, Columbia Heights, Fridley, Mounds View, Blaine, Bloomington, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Lakeville and other communities in the west keep 612, for now. Given the Twin Cities' voracious appetite for new numbers for cellular telephones, second lines, computer modems and other devices, the state Public Utilities Commission expects to consider the need for yet another area code in the summer of 1999. By 2001, the western half of the metropolitan area could need another area code, the PUC believes. That code would be 952. ------------------------------ Subject: U S West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:11:11 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network By Leyla Kokmen, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News As Williams Communications jumps into the telecommunications business after a three-year hiatus, US West Communications is standing alongside the Tulsa, Okla., company as the "anchor tenant" of its next-generation fiber-optic network. Williams, which touted itself as the nation's premier "carrier's carrier" at a news conference Monday at New York City's Madison Square Garden, plans to work as a wholesaler -- selling capacity, or bandwidth, on its fiber-optic network to other companies. US West is the first Baby Bell to forge such an alliance, said David Beigie, spokesman for US West. This partnership will give consumers who want to work with a regional Bell company one place to go for voice and Internet service over a national fiber-optic network, he added. With the explosion of people sending data over telephone lines and the Internet, having more bandwidth is essential. Williams officials said the company's network is more efficient than both traditional telephone networks and the newer fiber-optic networks now under construction by younger companies. As it strives to build upon its data networking services, US West will be the primary user of Williams' network. Terms of the partnership weren't disclosed. An energy company, Williams is a major transporter of natural gas. Its fiber-optic networkstretches through conduits buried along the rights of way of its pipelines. The network now consists of a single strand of fiber stretching across 11,000 miles. By the end of this year, Williams plans to add another 7,000 miles. It also will add more fibers where greater capacity is needed, said Ophyll D'Costa, vice president of business development for US West Enterprise Services, the Denver company's data networking arm. While other companies also may offer state-of-the-art fiber-optic networks, they are only in the building stages now, D'Costa said. One of the reasons US West formed its partnership with Williams is that the company already has so much fiber in place. "They have the capacity to serve our needs today," D'Costa said. Williams sold all but that one strand of fiber to WorldCom in January 1995. After the expiration Monday qof a three-year non-compete agreement with WorldCom, Williams can re-enter the telecommunications market. For US West, Williams' network will allow the company to expand both its data transmission services, which target mainly business customers, moving into areas outside of its traditional 14-state region. Key network hubs include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. US West will begin offering data services over the Williams network later this year, Beigie said. Eventually, US West also will offer long-distance telephone service over the lines, he added. During Monday's announcement, Sol Trujillo, president and CEO of US West, called the partnership with Williams a "virtual acquisition" of a nationwide backbone system. The value of the partnership, he said, is that US West can continue focusing on the growth of its data services while Williams focuses on building, operating and taking care of the network. "We don't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars up front or tens of millions maintaining the backbone network," Trujillo said. Because this reduces the cost of US West's infrastructure, consumers eventually will see lower prices, D'Costa said. But some competitors said they prefer to have their own fiber-optic network. "The middle and upper end of end of business customers in this country, they don't want to talk to people who are resellers," said Joseph Nacchio, president and CEO of Qwest Communications Inc. "With the Fortune 1000s or multinationals, you'll have a tough time unless you demonstrate control of the asset and architecture from level one." Qwest, based in Denver, is building its own 16,000-mile high-speed, high-capacity fiber-optic network around the country. Its network consists of 48 strands of fiber buried in conduits along railroad rights-of-way, with the ability to add 100 more fibers over time, Nacchio said. Calling the Williams network "fundamentally different" than the one Qwest is building, Nacchio said the telecommunications market is large enough for competition from numerous companies. "If we're not worried about networks that have been build by AT&T, MCI, Sprint and WorldCom, we're not worried about who's building behind us," Nacchio said. "This market is a big market." ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: CIUG PPP Interoperability Workshop Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:44:05 -0800 Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 The California ISDN Users' Group will be holding its next PPP Interoper- ability Workshop the week of February 23 at the Park Plaza Hotel in Burlingame, just south of the San Francisco airport. If you are a manufacturer of ISDN equipment, this is an opportunity to test the interoperability of your equipment against that from 50 other companies. Leading companies for the U.S., Europe, and Asia attend. You can pick up an application and further information at or . Bob Larribeau Chairman California ISDN Users' Group ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:45:53 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone BKHBKLAN.RVW 970408 "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone ed., 1995, 0-7913-2416-8 %E John P. Slone %C 823 Debra St, Livermore, CA 94550 %D 1995 %G 0-7913-2416-8 %I Auerbach Publications %O 510-455-9493 212-971-5000 800-950-1216 auerbach@wgl.com %P 360 %T "Handbook of Local Area Networks: 1995-96 Yearbook" I was disappointed in the first few chapters. The topics were important, but the content was quite simplistic, and didn't even address the level of knowledge that managers would need to have. Slone's own article on the World Wide Web started to change my opinion: it was a good, basic backgrounder, although not really addressing the newest technology. The individual articles vary greatly in quality and usefulness. None are really very technical, although the best are technically informed. The primary audience appears to be technical or telecommunications management, rather than staff. Ordering and division of the individual pieces is not very clear. The two Frame Relay articles are in separate sections. (One is not much more than you would get in a standard sales seminar; the other is an excellent guide to choosing frame relay in comparison with other technologies.) In total, there is something here for pretty much everyone. Article topics include hubs, 100M bit ethernet, Internet connectivity, frame relay, remote access, the Web, CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture), desktop operating systems, servers, wiring, client/server, conferencing, hierarchical storage management, LAN analysis, and remote monitoring. As an overview of some of these technologies, it can be valuable, although there can also be a lot of wasted ink. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHBKLAN.RVW 970408 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: 55th UCLA Engineering and Management Program Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:04:28 -0800 March 29-April 3, 1998, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for experienced first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals with high qadvancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Beckman Instruments, Amgen, Vertel, Rockwell, Boeing, Davidson & Associates, Sony Pictures Imageworks, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses and instructors. The program fee of $2,095 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For additional information and a complete program booklet, please contact Beverly Croswhite at: Phone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815 e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:26:57 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my comments about the Microsoft/USDJ debacle at the end of this 'pass-along' which came to me from Declan McCullagh. PAT] ------------------------------- Important point: If you were subscribed to f-c-a, you are now subscribed to politech. -Declan ************* Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:32:38 -0500 (EST) From: James Packard Love This is the fax that Microsoft sent to Professor Lessig, asking that he remove himself as special master. Microsoft complained about Lessig earlier "equating Microsoft with the devil," among other things. The email messages that MS refers to are displayed on the MS web page at http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/doj/1-5email.gif Jamie --------------- January 5, 1998 BY FACSIMILE Professor Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School, Griswold Hall 502, 1525 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Re: United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation Dear Professor Lessig: Microsoft is now in possession of the document referred to by the government at the conclusion of our meeting in New York on December 30, 1997. (See 12/30/97 Tr. at 127-28.) The document appears to be a collection of three electronic mail messages exchanged between you and employees of Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape"), the third of which bears a date of July 29, 1997. The first of the three messages is one from you to Peter F. Harter, whose title is Global Public Policy Counsel for Netscape and whose responsibilities reportedly include spearheading Netscape's government affairs campaign against Microsoft. In the message, you complain to Mr. Harter about the Macintosh version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0. You begin by stating, "OK, now this is making me really angry." You go on to state that you have discussed your complaint with someone named "Charlie Nesson," and that he is of the view that the two of you should "file a lawsuit," presumably against Microsoft. In the message, you also compare installing a Microsoft product on your computer to selling your "soul," apparently equating Microsoft with the devil. In his responsive message, Mr. Harter advises you that he has passed your complaint along to another Netscape employee, Eric Bradley, as well as to Netscape's general counsel, Roberta Katz. Mr. Harter offers to introduce you to Ms. Katz, whom he describes as a person "interested in matters concerning" Microsoft Internet Explorer. In the third message, which you received a copy of, Mr. Bradley, although acknowledging that he has never "actually installed [Microsoft Internet Explorer] of any flavor on my Macintosh," proceeds to deliver what can only be described as a diatribe against Microsoft, accusing the company of a variety of anticompetitive practices. Mr. Bradley concludes his message, which he himself labels as "ranting," by proclaiming, "I really do hate that company [Microsoft]." As a special master appointed to discharge important judicial functions, you are subject to all of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as to statutes governing the disqualification of judges. See Jenkins v. Sterlacci, 849 F.2d 627, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(b)(1), a judicial officer is required to disqualify himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge concerning disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." In addition, a judicial officer is required, under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a), to disqualify himself when, as an objective matter, his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 856-60 (1988); In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913, 916 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Edwards, J., dissenting). Under both of these provisions, it is clearly improper for a judicial officer to proceed with a case if he has formed an adverse opinion about a litigant based on information obtained from an extrajudicial source such as your experience with Microsoft technology on your Macintosh, your discussions with "Charlie Nesson" and your communications with employees of Netscape. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 552-55 (1994). Needless to say, Microsoft regards the sentiments expressed by you and your acquaintances at Netscape as exhibiting clear bias against Microsoft, disqualifying you from any further participation in this case. Netscape is a fierce rival of Microsoft in developing and marketing Internet-related software; the mere fact that you would raise a complaint about Microsoft with an acquaintance in the Netscape legal department, expressing the views you did, indicates that you are or, certainly, may reasonably be perceived to be a partisan of Netscape, and thus that you cannot be seen to be impartial in this case. It is an aggravating factor that the subject of your complaint to Netscape and the responses you received from Messrs. Harter and Bradley are so closely related to the subject matter of this case. It would be bad enough if you had voiced a complaint about Microsoft in general, but you raised the possibility of bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft presumably concerning the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer, a counterpart to the very aspect of Windows 95 that is the subject of the proceeding before you. Microsoft is also disturbed that you did not disclose these communications with Netscape to Microsoft voluntarily, but rather offered to explain them only after the government, no doubt aware of their implications, stated that it had a copy of an electronic mail message from you to Netscape. (See 12/30/97 Tr. at 127-28.) Nor did you disclose at the outset of this proceeding that you have a relationship with a senior lawyer at Netscape. Given that you have been less than forthcoming about these matters, Microsoft is reasonably concerned about what other communications may have occurred between you, Mr. Harter, Ms. Katz or others at Netscape. In a similar vein, and exacerbating the already grave concerns Microsoft has about your impartiality, Microsoft has learned that you were a participant in a public forum at Harvard University entitled "Business and the Internet: Strategy, Law and Policy." One of the coordinators of that forum was Professor Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, presumably the person referred to as "Charlie Nesson" in your electronic mail message to Mr. Harter of Netscape as suggesting a lawsuit against Microsoft. The seventh session of the forum, which took place on February 24, 1997, had the provocative title "Should Microsoft Be Allowed to Swallow the Net?" A principal topic of discussion at that session was whether Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by including Internet Explorer in Windows 95, the precise issue now pending before you. One of the two speakers at the session was Gary Reback of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Netscape's outside antitrust counsel. You apparently were present at this session and asked Mr. Reback questions about "what sort of a solution he would like to see embodied in a decree against Microsoft",presumably a reference to a new decree resulting from a hypothetical government enforcement action against Microsoft. (See http://roscoe.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get/www/ courses/techseminar97/calendar/discussions/session7_discussion.html/7.html) As you are no doubt aware, summaries of views expressed by participants at various sessions of the forum are archived on the Harvard Law School's site on the World Wide Web. (See http://www.law.harvard.edu/courses/tech97/calendar/sessions.) Inexplicably, the summary relating to the session at which Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows 95 was discussed is no longer available on the Internet. Such a summary plainly existed at one time because it was assigned a Uniform Resource Locator (www.fas.harvard.edu/~jbmarks/notes.html); the question is why it has been removed and what it would have revealed. Microsoft requests that you promptly supply the parties with a copy of the summary of the February 24, 1997 session, as well as any other documents that reflect statements made by you on that occasion. In addition, Microsoft requests that you provide the parties with any documents reflecting any other communications you have had with Mr. Harter or other employees of Netscape, as well as any communications you have had with Mr. Reback or other lawyers representing Netscape. Lastly, Microsoft requests that you provide the parties with all other documents in your possession concerning Microsoft that might reasonably be seen as bearing on your partiality. In light of the evidence that has now come to light demonstrating your actual bias against Microsoft, it is difficult to see how you can in good conscience preside over further proceedings in this matter. Microsoft is justifiably concerned that you are not able to serve as an impartial arbiter in any matter in which the company is involved. Microsoft therefore requests that you disqualify yourself immediately. If you are unwilling to do so, this matter should be referred to the Court so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard Microsoft's rights. Given that there is a conference call scheduled for 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, January 6, 1998, Microsoft needs to know as soon as possible how you intend to proceed. Respectfully submitted, Richard J. Urowsky cc: Hon. Thomas Penfield Jackson (w/ attachment) A. Douglas Melamed, Esq. Phillip R. Malone, Esq. ------------------- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176 ------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First things first: All the long time readers here are aware that Microsoft awarded a grant of ten thousand dollars to this Digest about three years ago. There were no strings attached to it; no conditions for its use; no requirement on editorial policy, etc. It was a gift intended for unrestricted use as needed. It was obtained from Microsoft through the efforts of two employees there who 'went to bat' with management to obtain it. Although no strings were attached, I said at the time that common courtesy required giving the company either favorable review or no review at all, at least for the duration of the grant. For the year it was intended to last, in fact I did not publish any derogatory comment about Microsoft. I still feel indebted to the company for its generosity, but am willing to publish criticism about them now that their formal participation in -- may I be frank? -- my basic survival financially in life has ended. Their grant paid my rent and heating bill all that winter. With that said upfront, let us continue. I am not really surprised to see that the current attack on Microsoft is now coming to light as not so much our dearly beloved public servants trying to protect the con- sumers of America, but instead as a cry of sour grapes by the company's primary competitor. Microsoft discovered an excellent marketing strategy which has worked quite well: put together an entire package of software including browser and other features in a well-integrated form which can be -- if the user so chooses -- 'all you ever need' in your computer. The results are in; the public loves it. Where Netscape controlled the browser market two years ago, now Microsoft has nearly half the market. What do you do when faced with stiff competition in business? Why you go get a few cronies in the Justice Department to rescue you of course. The US Department of Justice (some say Injustice) has a long history of corruption, attornies who work two sides of the fence at the same time, investigative services, i.e. the FBI which start their 'investi- gation' with a pre-planned agenda, etc. If you remember the way Justice and Judge Greene bullied and harassed AT&T several years ago for no other reason than AT&T had the audacity to run a first-rate telephone system making it hard for anyone else to get into the market, then you should not be surprised at the current assault on Microsoft. I was very fortunate to obtain a Toshiba Satellite 220 laptop computer a little over a month ago from one of the Digest's sponsors, Mike Sandman, and I am quite grateful for it. With Windows 95 on it, it was as you would expect, loaded with Microsoft stuff. I immediatly went out and got a copy of Internet Explorer 4.0 (the latest version) to replace the version 3 which had come installed. But I didn't stop there. I also got a copy of Netscape 3.0 and installed it. As a consumer I also want a choice, and I have both icons on the desktop ready for use. One browser is good for some applications, and the other is better at other things. They each keep trying to nudge the other out of the way, starting up with a message saying 'this is not listed as your default browser, would you like to make it so?' and I just keep saying no. Maybe I should have gone to get a government lawyer instead to make the choice for me. Or perhaps Professor Lessig, like all good professors at Harvard, can assist in making an impartial judgment .. .. but what really burns me is that the govern- ment and the Court knew of Lessig's involvement with Netscape yet chose to withhold that information from Microsoft until the company got the information from elsewhere. That should fill you in on where the Justice Department and the federal court is at in this matter. Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then my recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from their computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pat O'Neil Subject: Everything Happened Around the Switchboard Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:56:11 -0500 Organization: Hughes Network Systems, Inc. Pat, I read your comments about this book and dropped some broad hints to my wife that it would make a great Christmas present. She came through. I just finished the book. It was every bit as delightful as you said. Thanks for the recommendation. Pat O'Neil Hughes Network Systems Germantown, Md [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, isn't it a perfectly delightful look at the 'old days' in telecommunications; a time when 'mom and pop" phone companies were very prevalent all over the United States. For those of you who missed the earlier mention of this book, I suggest if you would like to read a very warm, very human account of a little telephone company in Maine which was owned and operated by a man and his wife with the help of a part time operator for more than thirty years, then get a copy of "Everything Happened Around the Switchboard". You can get the complete review done here in the Digest last year from the Archives, as well as the original articles which announced the company going out of business which appeared in this Digest fifteen years ago in 1982. The book is $15.95 and can be obtained via mail order from Mike Sandman, a Digest sponsor. Check out http://www.sandman.com or call his office in Roselle, IL which is a west suburb of Chicago on the number 630-980-7710. Also ask for the current catalog of telecom- related products, eighty-plus pages of very informative reading even if you don't choose to order anything. It is free, and you can use any major credit card to pay for the book. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #1 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 22:13:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA12250; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:13:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:13:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080313.WAA12250@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #2 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 22:13:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris (Rob Slade) San Francisco to Consider 311 (Jack Hamilton) SBA to FCC: Stay, Recind, and Reconsider! (Judith Oppenheimer) SBC in $4.4 Billion Southern New England Merger (Monty Solomon) Pacific Bell and Spam (Afshin David Youssefyeh) Plan 9 From AT&T (Adam H. Kerman) UCLA Short Course on CNS/ATM (Bill Goodin) Correction Re: How Sprint Got Its Name (Ronald D.Havens) The Voice of Bell Atlantic (Greg Monti) Is Cellular Tracking A Profit Opportunity? (Greg Monti) Telephone Sounds File Wanted (Sam LaMacchia) I'll Be on the Radio Friday Night (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:04:43 -0800 Subject: "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKIRCSVG.RVW 970408 "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris, 1995, 0-201-41000-1, U$17.95/C$22.95 %A Stuart Harris %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1995 %G 0-201-41000-1 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$17.95/C$22.95 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 bkexpress@aw.com %P 213 %T "The irc Survival Guide: Talk to the World with Internet Relay Chat" I must admit that I agree with those who see IRC (Internet Relay Chat) as a profound waste of time. Yes, a dozen years ago, I conducted an international conference via CompuServe's CB Simulator, and I figured that there was potential in real-time chat. But that was a far cry from the anarchic noise that goes on in pretty much every IRC channel. So, why am I going to keep Harris' book? Because it's the most realistic, balanced, complete, and positively helpful book I've read on the application to date. Harris gives some background, netiquette tips, time savers, self defense, a glossary, a list of client software, and a list of servers. Mostly, though, he provides a list of commands--and commands, and more commands, and options for the commands. As he admits, up front, not all commands are available on all IRC clients. (Appendix A gives some detail on where you are likely to find, and not find, specific commands.) It's *almost* enough to convince me to give it another shot. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKIRCSVG.RVW 970408 ------------------------------ From: jfh@alumni.stanford.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: San Francisco to Consider 311 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 05:30:09 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton According to an article in the January 6 {San Francisco Examiner}, San Francisco is considering creating a 311 number for non-emergency police calls, similar to the 911 number for emergencies. San Jose, a larger city to the south of San Francisco, implemented the 311 system last November. Calls to 911 have dropped by 20%. Supervisor Jose Medina says that this would be a good time to add 311 services, since the city is implementing a new 911 system, but the project director for the 911 system says he is waiting for the results of a state task force. (San Francisco is a combined city and county, which means that the problem of finding the appropriate police agency will come up less often. I can think of at least five police agencies which operate there -- the SFPD, the University of California, Bay Area Rapid Transit, the National Park Service, and the California Highway Patrol -- but only the SFPD has general responsibility for the area. Los Angeles County has dozens if not hundreds of police agencies with complicated borders.) The search engine for the combined {Chronicle and Examiner} at found a longer article in the Chronicle of January 2. It said that: - The number of 911 calls put on hold in Baltimore, which has also implemented a 311 system, has been reduced by 60%. - San Jose's system is getting 14,000 calls per week after only five weeks of operation. - Los Angeles may implement a 311 system this year. Only 20% of the 911 calls there are real emergencies. Jack Hamilton jfh@alumni.stanford.org PGP ID: 79E07035 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:05:26 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SBA to FCC: Stay, Recind and Reconsider! The U.S. Small Business Administration characterizes the FCC's Toll Free Second Report and Order as 'failing to recognize marketplace realities, arbitrary and capricious'. Washington, DC January 6, 1998 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In one of the most compelling petitions file to date, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration filed an Exparte Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order for Toll Free Service Access Codes, on December 12, 1997. The Office of Advocacy was established by Congress in 1976 to represent the views and interests of small business with the federal government. Its statutory duties include reviewing federal government policies and regulations that affect small business, developing proposals for changes in federal agencies' policies, and communicating those proposals to the agencies. The Office also has a statutory duty to monitor and report on the FCC's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which factors substantially in this petition. The petition details 'the tremendous economic impact on small businesses that this Second Report and Order will impose. Most importantly, these comments also detail the material flaws in the Second Report and Order's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.' Among its admonishments, the SBA specifies that the FCC: 1. failed to provide proper public notice of a proposed rule to small business in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; 2. finalized a rule that is not a logical outgrowth of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM); 3. failed to identify properly, describe and reasonably estimate the number of all small entities to which these rules will apply; 4. failed to detail all of the compliance requirements that small businesses subject to the rule must undertake; 5. and failed to analyze the impact of its rules on small business end users, and small business toll free providers, especially those engaged in the secondary market. The petition goes on, 'Toll free use also involves the provision of toll free service by entities that are not telecommunications companies ... The variety of private entities that also provide access to a toll free number, (either by sale or lease) are loosely classified as the secondary market. The Commission has not explained in the substantive body of the Second Report and Order, nor the FRFA, how the ex post facto finding of illegality for the sale of a toll free number or the possession of multiple toll free numbers, including the provision of forfeitures and criminal sanctions for hoarding and brokering, serves to encourage rapid private sector deployment in all telecommunications markets as envisioned by Congress. Neither has the Commission fully explained nor justified how the elimination of businesses engaged in the secondary market deplete an allegedly scarce resource and/or does not service the public interest.' Asserting that the Second Report and Order is in direct contradiction to the congressional intent of the 1996 Act to foster competition in all telecommunications markets, the Advocacy Office characterizes the Second Report and Order as 'failing to recognize marketplace realities and arbitrary and capricious, and asks the Commission to grant the petitions for an emergency stay of the rule, rescind certain sections of it entirely, and revise other rules in accordance with a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that includes a properly executed Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In its reconsideration of the rule, the Advocacy Office recommends that the Commission eliminate the rebuttable presumption that the mere posession of multiple toll free numbers indicates illegal behavior; revise or reclarify its definition of hoarding and brokering to eliminate impermissible vagueness; explicitly exempt all entities that provide "collateral" services such as shared-use, telemarketing, advertising, and marketing consulting services; and adopt protective measures, pursuant to due process, that give the Commission sole enforcement authority of pronouncing illegal behavior and executing a termination policy. Authurs of the petition are Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel, and S. Jenell Trigg, Assistant Chief Counsel for Telecommunications, Office of Advocacy, U.S. SBA. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:14:09 EST From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC in $4.4 Bilion Southern New England Merger SAN ANTONIO, Texas, (Reuters) - SBC Communications formerly Southwestern Bell, said Monday it would merge with Southern New England Telecommunications, the phone company for most of Connecticut, in a deal valued at $4.4 billion. SBC said the acquisition price equals $65.83 per Southern New England share. Under the terms of the agreement Southern New England shareholders would get 0.8784 of an SBC share for each of its shares. Upon completion of the merger SBC will serve over 34.7 million access lines in high-growth areas and have access to more than 92.6 million potential wireless customers across the country, it said in a release. "This merger reflects the confidence we have in the growth prospects of our companies' wireless and wireline businesses," SBC Chief Executive Edward Whitacre said in a press release. The transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, involves a merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC into SNET. Southern New England will continue to be based in Connecticut. The companies hope to complete the transaction by the end of 1998. ------------------------------ From: Afshin David Youssefyeh Reply-To: kashi@ibm.net Subject: Pacific Bell and Spam Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 00:06:55 -0800 Recently, I received a piece of spam from a company that receives its internet access from Pacific Bell. When I complained to Pacbell, the response that I received, is below. I live in a Pacific Bell service area and because I know Agis is their upstream provider, I had dissuaded many people from signing up with them, this just affirmed my belief: > Hi Afshin: > > Thank you for writing > > The message you forwarded to me involved one of our dedicated customers. > Although Pacific Bell Internet expects its dedicated customers to abide > by our Acceptable Use Policy (which is published at the following URL: >http://public.pacbell.net:8001/dedicated/aup_ded.html), we allow them to > adopt their own procedures for handling complaints. > > Please note that this is *not* a brush-off. Pacific Bell Internet > *does* monitor compliance by its dedicated customers with its acceptable > use policy. We are referring you to our dedicated customer due to the > fact that the records and logs reflecting abusive activity are in the > possession of the dedicated customer. > > I will direct a copy of your complaint to our dedicated customer. > Please let us know if you are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution > of this matter with our dedicated customer. Pacific Bell Internet can > and will intervene if the dedicated customer is the source of the > abusive activity or if our dedicated customer fails to take action > against abusive activities committed by its customers. > > Please do not hesitate to write again if you have any questions or if > you wish to report other instances of abuse by Pacific Bell Internet > dialup or dedicated customers. > > Regards, > > Nick Nicholas > Senior Policy Manager Nick Nicholas Senior Policy Manager Pacific Bell Internet Services policy@pbi.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:21:08 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Plan 9 From AT&T Notice is hereby given that AT&T of Illinois has filed price increases in certain of its Dial Station IntraLATA price schedules, Simplified Plan No. 9, Simplified Lifestyle Calling Plan, CTS Yellow Sense Promotion, and Blue Sense I Promotion, to become effective 12/30/97. From a legal notice published Wed, 12/31/97, announcing (I assume) a retroactive rate increase. The practice in legal notices to the public over the last several years in Illinois has been to publish these cryptic notes. Until three years ago, legal notices used to contain actual descriptions of the plans and services, and the rates being changed. As you well know, often plans are marketed under entirely different names than appear in the tariffs. As I don't happen to live in my state capital, and tariff filings are no longer kept up-to-date at any company business office convenient to me, and they aren't published on the Web, how am I to get convenient access to information? The state legislature has made the Chief Clerk's office of the Illinois Commerce Commission a profit center. They charge an outrageous 50 cents a page for copies of tariffs! What is the experience in other states? Is your state legislature friendlier to consumer interests? What devious shenanigans are covered under Plan 9 from AT&T? ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on CNS/ATM Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:04:16 -0800 On March 30-April 2, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Satellite-Based Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Mr. Cary R. Spitzer, MS, President, AvioniCon, Inc.; Mr. Wayne Aleshire, Captain, United Airlines; Mr. Michael J. Morgan, Honeywell; and Mr. Roy T. Oishi, ARINC, Inc. After a decade of work by the Future Air Navigation Systems committees of the United Nations-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aviation industry is implementing satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) on a global basis. CNS/ATM promises substantial increases in airspace system capacity and benefits to both aircraft operators and air traffic services providers. This course begins with a review of avionics concepts to ensure a solid foundation for subsequent material. The rest of the course traces the development of the CNS/ATM concept, introduces its underlying principles, and presents each of the three cornerstone technologies -- communications, navigation, and surveillance -- from an airborne perspective. These technologies are discussed in detail by experts who contributed to the design and development of the avionics intended to reap CNS/ATM benefits which are now being installed on many aircraft. The course concludes with a summary of real-world experience by a major airline that has already equipped some of its fleet with first-generation CNS/ATM systems. This course is intended as an introduction to CNS/ATM. The level of detail presented makes the course suitable for a broad range of career backgrounds including technology (both air- and ground-based aviation systems), business development, and technical management. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: RONALD.D.HAVENS@sprint.sprint.com Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:40:35 -0500 Subject: Correction Re: How Sprint Got Its Name Hi Pat. I subscribe to the TELECOM Digest and read same on a time permitting basis. Recently in the December 16, 1997 edition (V17|348) you were talking about the meaning of the name "Sprint". I've been with Sprint for 22 years, and started with Southern Pacific Communications. I was at the time that SPC began offering their dial-up service which later came to be known as "Sprint" the engineer responsible for transmission and interface design of the network used to provide the service. The origin of the name is as follows: We began offering a dial-up service shortly after the Execunet II decision late in 1978 (there had been prior attempts to do this, but they had met with limited success at best in obtaining FCC approval). Prior tot the Execunet II decision our offering was limited to a FAX service called "SpeedFAX, since competitive dial-up voice was not permitted. When we began to offer dial-up voice it was decided that we needed a name for the product that would differentiate the service from the FAX offering, and that we needed a name for the service. Rex Hollis, the VP of Marketing at the time (now with Loral), ran a contest to select a name. The winning entry was "Sprint", and was submitted by Tony Broadman (now with Qwest). "Sprint" never really meant anything, but it makes an interesting story. It was only after the name began to catch on that attempts were made to "force-fit" it into an acronym. Ron Havens ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 00:16:36 From: Greg Monti Subject: The Voice of Bell Atlantic On Friday, January 2, 1998, the _Washington Post_ ran a piece on page D1 entitled "Smooth Operator" by Elizabeth Kastor. A summary: Eryca Dawson, a 29-year-old resident of the suburb of Mount Rainier, Maryland, is becoming the voice of Bell Atlantic. BA's CEO Ray Smith wanted a consistent voice and sound for all Bell Atlantic recorded messages. (Dawson does not replace the commercial and promotional sound of James Earl Jones, who remains spokesman.) Dawson was chosen because her voice is, as the writer put it, "not like a machine; accentless and utterly without regional or ethnic idiosyncrasy". Dawson grew up in a small town in central New York State. To date, Dawson has recorded over 6,000 phrases and messages for Bell Atlantic. She limits her recording sessions to four hours on a given day. Messages like: "For what city?" "Thank you. For what listing?" "Thank you for calling Bell Atlantic. To discuss an overdue bill, make payment arrangements, or if your service has been turned off for non-payment, press one, now." "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." The article has two photos of Dawson, wearing a dark sweater, hoop earrings and a pleasant smile. She has a 2-year exclusive contract with BA. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 00:40:44 From: Greg Monti Subject: Is Cellular Tracking A Profit Opportunity? On December 13, 1997, the _Washington Post_ ran a story entitled "Cellular Phone Firms Zero in on Tracking; Locator Capability May Offer Profit Potential" by Mike Mills. It begins on page F1, the Business front. A summary: Recent requirements for 911 call handling by cellular carriers have ignored the possibility that there is a business case to offer tracking services profitably. The first new cellular 911 rule, to take affect in April 1998, requires cellular carriers to display the cellular tower and direction from which each 911 call originated. That's not very exact, since the mobile could be miles from the tower. By October, 2001, carriers will also be required to install new hardware and software that can track a caller's location down to 400 feet at least 67 percent of the time. That could cost $50,000 per cellular tower. Cellular customers shoud expect to pay 50 cents to $1.50 extra per month to help pay for the 911 tracking services. Cellular strategists are considering whether customers also might pay for services like: - emergency road service which finds you when you don't know where you are; - a concierge service that finds the nearest hotel; - stolen vehicle tracking and recovery, - navigation assistance. Managers of 911 systems are hoping that the carriers can make tracking profitable so they they don't need to bear the burden of financing the feature. The article notes that safety is one of the main reasons consumers buy cell phones. About 30 percent of all 911 calls come from cellulars. That's about 60,000 cellular 911 calls per day. There are 52 million cellular phones in Americans' cars. The writer wonders why they couldn't be used as location transmitters in competition with Global Positioning Systems that have been in service for years. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 03:01:09 -0800 From: Sam LaMacchia Reply-To: slamac@digidesign.com Organization: Digidesign Incorporated Subject: Telephone Sounds File Wanted Hello Patrick, I've looked high and low to see if someone's got a soundfile of the old "crybaby" busy/reorder tone. Where in the world can I find a recording of it? Thanks! Sam LaMacchia ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: I'll be on the Radio Friday Night Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 22:00:00 EST Readers in the vicinity of Buffalo, NY may wish to listen to me on the radio Friday night and call in with questions regarding the new fee being imposed on telephone subscribers with more than one line. I was invited by John Otto to be a guest on his program which is aired on station WGR, 550 kc on the AM dial. The show will be from 10:10 pm to 11:00 pm Eastern time this Friday (tomorrow) night. Although WGR is only a five thousand watt station, late at night the signal gets around, so readers in other parts of the USA and certainly around the east coast of Canada should be able to hear it. Certainly it will be great to chat with Digest readers in the Buffalo, NY area. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 23:36:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18274; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080436.XAA18274@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #3 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 23:35:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional (E.E. Holling) Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional (W.Gucwa) Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional (Dave Stott) 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices (Monty Solomon) V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long (Greg Knight) Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) (Yoohwan Kim) Need For an Unusual Type of Service (Clive D.W. Feather) Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX (Fraser Orr) Educational Seminar (Jerry Kaufman) MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again (ncom1@hotmail) Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs (Jack Decker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. E. Holling Subject: FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 08:58:59 -0500 Organization: The InTech Group, Inc. In response to an SBC petition the US District Court for the Northern Texas found section 271-75 of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 unconstitutional in its baring of Bell companies from providing long distance service, electronic publishing and equipment manufacturing. Judge Joe Kendell state the Act singled out for "punishment" SBC and "extremely onerous" by the jurist. He wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the {Bells} of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe see http://www.intech-group.com/FYI.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ernie Holling Mailto: info@Intech-Group.com The InTech Group, Inc. +1-610-524-8400 Consultants and Analysts FAX:+1-610-524-8440 305 Exton Commons, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341-2450 A Member of The Society of Telecommunications Consultants The Eastern Technology Council MultiMedia Telecommunications Association Building Industry Consulting Service International Copyright 1998 All Rights Reserved Permission to distribute the F.Y.I.'s with this signature block included is granted. ------------------------------ From: Wayne Gucwa Subject: Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500 Organization: Planet Access Network Inc. By Charles Richards, Associated Press, 01/01/98 09:54 DALLAS (AP) - Moving the ``Baby Bells'' a step closer to offering long-distance service, a federal judge has struck down part of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall of Wichita Falls ruled Wednesday that Congress unconstitutionally singled out and barred regional Bell subsidiaries from providing long distance and other services. The chairman of SBC Communications, which filed the lawsuit in July, said the ruling was the single most important victory for phone customers and competition since the divestiture of the Bell system in 1984. "We intend to provide our customers with one-stop shopping for all their telecommunications needs by offering the simplest, most affordable long-distance plan available," said Edward Whitacre Jr., head of San Antonio-based SBC. Liz Rose, a spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission, said the agency likely will ask the Justice Department to appeal. "I am extremely concerned about what seems to be a court's invalidation of much that Congress, this commission and the affected phone companies have done to bring consumers the benefits of competition," FCC Chairman William Kennard said. Mark C. Rosenblum, AT&T vice president for law and public policy, called the ruling "inexplicable and clearly erroneous." Courts, Congress and regulators "have long recognized that the Bell monopolies differ from other local companies in size and scope," he said. The Bells see their local markets as an opportunity to offer one-stop communications most cheaply and efficiently. But these markets are where the federal entry requirements are toughest - and they are where the potential is the greatest for local phone companies to have customers subsidize the companies' investment in long distance, which is not allowed. The 1996 law deregulating the telecommunications industry allowed the Bells to seek permission to provide long-distance service in local phone regions. The law frees local and long-distance companies to enter each other's businesses, subject to regulatory approval. So far, no regional company has been cleared by the FCC to provide long-distance service within the states of its region. In its lawsuit, SBC contended the act was unfair because rather than establishing classes or categories, it identifies Baby Bells by name and bars them from entering the long distance and other businesses - such as electronic publishing or electronic alarm monitoring - that other local phone companies may provide. The suit was filed after unsuccessful attempts by SBC to enter the long-distance business in Oklahoma, a state served by its subsidiary, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. It also operates under the Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell names. The company challenged only the portion of the act that singled out and excluded SBC from competing in certain business, said Lonny Morrison, a Wichita Falls attorney who represented the company. SBC said the ruling will enable it to provide long distance in its service region of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, California and Nevada. Whitacre said the company plans to seek permission to offer long-distance service first in Oklahoma. Another Bell company, Bell Atlantic, said it will file an application with the FCC soon to provide long-distance service in New York and eventually to other states. "Bell Atlantic never thought it was the intent of Congress to impose burdens to keep some players out of long distance and allow others in," spokeswoman Susan Butta said. Sol Trujillo, president and chief executive officer of US West Communications, said the ruling "will further accelerate the day when consumers can see the benefits of full competition in the long-distance market." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:17:05 GMT From: Dave Stott Subject: Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional According to Rueters News Service, a Federal judge in Texas has voided a key part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He agreed with SBC that the law was unconstitutional because SBC and the other RBOCs were singled out for punishment by the portion of the bill requiring them to open their markets to competition before they could enter the LD market. According to the article, written by Roger Fillion: 'Judge Kendall wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the (Bells) of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." In the case of long-distance entry, the act requires the Bells to meet a 14-point checklist. But Judge Kendall called the checklist requirements "extremely onerous." Wonder what happens next? No wonder we used to refer to this as the Telecommunication Attorneys' Full Employment Act of 1996. Dave Stott 602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ====================================================================== Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:24:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices by Chris Oakes 3:10pm 6.Jan.98.PST Cell phones will be taking on a new role in 1998, beginning a slow transition to becoming user tracking devices. The outcome of this shift reassures some, but has others calling for restrictions on how cell-locating information can be used. The impending first phase of the FCC's rules is aimed at enabling emergency services personnel to quickly get information on the location of a cell phone user in the event of a 911 call. By April, all cellular and personal communications services providers will have to transmit to 911 operators and other "public safety answering points" the telephone number and cell site location of any cell phone making a 911 call. The aim of the law is to bring to cell phone users the same automatic-locating capability that now exists with wireline phones. But while the FCC's aim is simple on the surface - to make it easier for medical, fire, and police teams to locate and respond to callers in distress - the technology is also giving rise to concerns over the ease with which the digital age and its wireless accouterments are bringing to tracking individuals. "The technology is pretty much developing to create a more and more precise location information. The key question for us is 'what is the legal standard for government access?'" says James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Those seeking restrictions on the use of cell phone tracking information emphasize that, unlike the stationary wireline phones, a cell phone is more specifically associated with an individual and their minute-by-minute location. In December, the FCC began requiring wireless providers to automatically patch through any emergency calls made through their networks. Subscriber or not, bills paid or unpaid, anyone with a cell phone and a mobile identification number was thus guaranteed to see their 911 calls completed. 1998 brings new rules into place that take that initial action much further. By April, emergency service personnel will receive more than just the call - they'll also get the originating cell phone's telephone number and, more significantly, the location of the cell site that handled the call. The FCC's "Enhanced 911 services" requirements that wireless providers make this information available is the beginning of a tracking system that by 2001 will be able to locate a phone within a 125-meter radius. To provide this precise location information, Jeffrey Nelson of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association says different carriers will choose different methods of gathering location information, but all of them involve detecting the radio frequencies sent from the phone to service antennas. Because a phone sends additional signals to other antennas in addition to the primary one, "triangulation" lets them calculate the caller's whereabouts within that multi-antenna region. All this happens automatically when a cell phone is turned on. The upshot, Nelson says, is that cellular callers will "be able to make a call to 911 or the appropriate emergency number without having to explain where they are." He cites a case in which a woman stranded in a blizzard, unable to tell where she was, was located by use of her cell phone. Various systems are being tested by most providers, he reports, but many are already working with methods to provide such location information today. But this tracking issue has privacy advocates seeking preventive legislation to see that the instant accessibility of the information to emergency units doesn't just as easily deliver the same tracking information to law enforcement agencies - from local police on up to the FBI. "The FCC has been in the picture from the 911 perspective," says Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology. But to him, this obvious emergency benefit of E911 necessitates legal action to draw boundaries around its use by other organizations, namely law enforcement. That's where the issue runs into the same waters as the controversy surrounding the expansion of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. That 1994 law was meant to keep communications companies from letting the advancement of digital and wireless technology become an obstacle to the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies. But the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, have argued that as CALEA undergoes actual implementation (a process that is still ongoing), the FBI is seeking to expand its surveillance capabilities by seeking unjust specifications for phone systems' compliance with the law. Dempsey wants to see both CALEA and the new E911 requirements be implemented with clear restrictions on the ability of law enforcement to tap into personal information on users, especially their whereabouts at any one time. With the implementation of E911, Dempsey says that in effect, "your phone has become an ankle bracelet. Therefore we are urging the standard for government access be increased to a full probable cause standard. [Law enforcement agencies] have to have suspicion to believe that the person they are targeting is engaged in criminal activity." Currently, he says, to get a court order allowing the surveillance of cell phone use, law enforcement only has to prove that the information sought - not the individual - is relevant to an ongoing investigation. "It says to law enforcement you've got to have a link between the person you're targeting and the crime at issue," Dempsey says. "It cannot be a mere fishing expedition." While the CDT and others seek beefed-up constitutional restrictions on the ability for law enforcement to obtain court orders in such cases, the FBI says the process for obtaining such court orders is already adequate. "We work under the strict provisions of the law with regard to our ability to obtain a court order," said Barry Smith, supervisory special agent in the FBI's office of public affairs. "Law enforcement's access to [cell phone data] falls very much within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment." He also says that under CALEA, the call data the FBI seeks does not provide the specific location of a wireless phone. The FCC and its E911 requirements are distinct from CALEA, but because they offer the ultimate form of tracking information - far more instantly and explicitly than the FBI is seeking in the implementation of CALEA, E911 may be ripe for access by law enforcement for non-emergency needs. As for the distinction between the dispute over CALEA and the FCC's E911 services, Smith says the latter has nothing to do with the FBI. "There's not any crossover between the two." But, says Dempsey, when law enforcement serves a court order, they could get location information through the requirements established by E911. ------------------------------ From: Greg Knight Subject: V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long Date: 8 Jan 1998 02:05:58 GMT Organization: Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. Does anyone out there have the formula for converting the V&H coordinates used in the NNACL and LERG Bellcore documents? Any help would be appreciated. Greg Knight gknight@cris.com ------------------------------ From: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) Subject: Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) Date: 7 Jan 1998 20:08:52 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) I could not make international calls since I had my line installed a week ago. After struggling with AT&T and Bell Atlantic for several hours, I gave up and converted to MCI. Does anyone know why it happened? Neither company had international call blocking. I want to go back to AT&T and don't want to repeat the same problem. Please mail me (yoohwan@lucent.com) if you have any clue. Thanks. -- Yoohwan ---------------------------------- Here is the log of what happened. Dec. 23 1997 Requested phone line installation, requested AT&T for all long distance calls. Dec. 30 1997 supposed to be connected, but line was not activated. called repair service, repairman came to apt. and fixed the switch. we found that we cannot make international calls, but domestic long dist. is OK. The msg is " The number dialed is not allowed from your calling area. Please hang up and check that you have dialed dialed the correct number" called AT&T, she just said to try 10288 access code and hung up. We tried 10288 but still got the same message. Jan x 1998 called AT&T, he says the message is not from AT&T and Bell Atlantic's 700/900 blocking may be blocking international calls. Jan x called BA, they said all long distance problem is AT&T's and they've never heard the msg. Jan x BA performed test, taking my dialtone from their central office and did internal circuit test, (but they did not actually called the international number), they found no problem. Jan. 6 Tried call using 10222 (MCI) and successfully made calls to Korea and Japan, 10288(AT&T) does not work for any country. Changed the long dist. to MCI. Jan 7. morning. Bell Atlantic found that our call is directed to MCI instead of AT&T, and mistakenly thought that it had been the problem. So they reconnected to AT&T. We lost even domestic call capabilities. We asked reconnecting to MCI. Jan. 7 afternoon. MCI is restored. regular 011+... international call works through MCI. I have three reasons to believe that this is AT&T's problem. One. I could make international call using 10222(MCI), but not using 10288(AT&T). Two. After I called all the digits, I wait a few seconds and hear the msg. (There is no ringing signal inbetween.) I think the call was already transfered to AT&T at this point. Three. I converted to MCI and can successfully make the calls. What would be the problem in AT&T ? (I know their answer : "call Bell Atlantic") [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can say this much, that the message 'number you are dialing is not allowed from your calling area' almost always applies to toll-free 800 numbers you dial which have limited areas from which they will accept calls. For example, if an 800 number is set up as intrastate only (in some state) then attempts to call it from outside that state will get the recording mentioned. Would you mind telling us what number (county code/city code) you were dialing and how you dialed the call? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:08:49 +0000 From: Clive D.W. Feather Reply-To: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Need For an Unusual Type of Service Organization: Demon Internet We're looking at putting some equipment into either New York (Manhattan) or New Jersey (Hoboken-ish), and have some slightly unusual telephone requirements. Not the physical lines, but the phone number. - It should not be a free or fixed-cost call for anyone (so not a local number in 212). - It should not generate a per-minute charge for us (otherwise we might as well switch to 800/888/877 and charge back to the customer). - It should not be likely to be blocked from hotels (so not a 900 number). - Ideally it should be cheap to call (no more than normal long distance would be; certainly no more than calls to the UK). Can anyone provide suggestions ? 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 | ------------------------------ From: ifo@xnet.com (Fraser Orr) Subject: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:37:04 -0600 Organization: XNet-Midwest's Leading Network Service Provider 630-983-6064 I wonder if someone here could help me with a problem I have. I work in a location that has a PBX, and I want to use it to connect my modem to an ISP. Unfortunately I can't just unplug the phone at the wall like usual, and plug in the modem. I am no expert in telecoms but I understand that the phone sends some digital signal down that line, rather than analog. Various people I have spoken to seem to indicate that it is simply not possible to connect a modem via these telephone systems, but I simply don't believe them. I remember when modems were still operating at 1200 baud, that you could buy a device called an acoustic coupler, that you strapped onto the phone, and it seems to me that this would surely work. It seems rather an unsophisiticated solution though. Is it possible to simply unplug the handset of the phone, and, using a suitably modified jack, plug the modem in there? Even if it can't necessarily dial the number, I would be happy to dial it myself. Any suggestions? Confused in Illinois. Fraser Orr ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kaufman Subject: Educational Seminar Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 11:59:30 -0600 Organization: Alexander Resources THE NEW WIRELESS REALITY A Critical Analysis and Educational Seminar covering the Fundamentals, Applications & Limitations of The Wireless Revolution * The NEW Cellular, PCS, Satellite, & Fixed Wireless Access networks and services * The WIRELESS Technologies, standards, spectrum, and modulations schemes * The REALITY: Fact & Fiction, Applications & Limitations At this seminar you will learn: * The basics, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of various terrestrial and satellite wireless: - Technologies - Network architectures - Air interface standards - Spectrum choices - Modulation techniques * The role of land line networks and services in the new wireless reality * The hurdles to integrating/interfacing various wireless networks and services * The reality of using new wireless technologies to replace or augment traditional wired voice and data networks * Where wireless increases productivity, produces a ROI and where it doesn't * What it takes to make one phone number and one phone per user a reality * The differences between single, dual, and triple mode phones, networks and services * The capabilities of single (private or public), dual, & triple domain networks, systems, phones and services * How new wireless technologies will impact existing private and public networks and services At the New Wireless Reality seminar you will not only gain a fundamental understanding of these new networks and services but be armed with the knowledge to separate fact from fiction. 1998 SEMINAR SCHEDULE Phoenix, AZ March 9-10, 1998 The New Wireless Reality seminar was developed and is sponsored exclusively by Alexander Resources Contact: Carole Kaufman Telephone: 972-818-8225 Fax: 972-818-6366 E-mail: CaroleK@AlexanderResources.com The two day seminar will be taught by Jerry Kaufman, President of Alexander Resources. Mr. Kaufman is an internationally recognized consultant, lecturer, author and expert on wireless communications and the foremost authority on wireless telephone systems. Alexander Resources Co. 15851 N. Dallas Pkwy, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75248 USA ------------------------------ From: RAdler Subject: MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1998 17:53:07 -1000 Organization: IBM.NET I presently use AT&T for res. long-distance service; for the most part sounds great - even calling the mainland. I even dialed a 56k x2-access number in Florida (that's over 5000 miles away) and got an x2 connection. Before I switched to AT&T, I was using MCI. Even on inter-island calls (less than 250 miles) I would normally have extreme amounts of echo and noise - reminding me of how phone calls USED to sound. I complained MANY times to MCI customer (non)-service, and it still hasn't changed to this day. A friend of mine on Oahu switched to MCI - now, when he calls, I get "Out of Area" on my caller ID, and E C H O !!!!! Now, from what I'm told, all the alternate intra-lata carriers use GTE facilities -- none have their own. So why does MCI sound SO bad? (Sounds bad to the mainland, too.) And why don't I get the caller id? (Well, when an MCI customer calls from the mainland, I don't get the ID either, but I do if they're on AT&T or Sprint.) Also - On Thanksgiving day, "All circuits are busy" comes on for HOURS. This is not your normal 'all circuits are busy' - I could not even get an operator (00 - produced all circuits are busy); the code on the message was '322' which is the exchange of the CO switch serving my remote office. Whose fault is it? The local carrier (GTE) or my long-distance carrier? This also happened when I was on MCI on Subject: Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs A friend of mine asked me a question recently about what he thought might be a rather strange quirk in Ameritech ISDN tariffs in Michigan. I know a lot more about POTS than ISDN, so I wondered if anyone might enlighten us a bit. Basically, as he understands it, residential ISDN lines are untimed (we are, of course, talking about local calls here) - when you make an ISDN connection, you do not get dinged for a per-minute charge. However, he has been told that business ISDN lines are different - that there is in fact a per-minute charge for the duration of an ISDN connection. But, he was also told by someone that there is a quirk in the tariffs, and if you order "digital for analog" (???) the per-minute charge does not apply. The way it was explained to him, the "digital for analog" is used to get two voice grade lines on an ISDN channel, but once the line is installed it can be used just like a standard ISDN line, however the phone company doesn't make any guarantees about the ability of the line to actually handle a data connection. My question is, does this description of the situation make any sense at all, and does anyone have sufficient knowledge of Ameritech tariffs to know whether what I've described might in fact be the way things work? Whoever told him about this said that some ISP's actually advise their customers to get this type of connection, whatever it is. If this is indeed the case, can anyone give me a more specific description of what he'd need to order from Ameritech in order to get one of these lines installed in a place of business (without hopelessly confusing the service rep and/or getting stuck with the kind of ISDN line that does carry the per-minute charge)? To reply by e-mail, please remove the ".REMOVE-THIS" from my return address. Spammers, please do NOT send me e-mail; I *never* buy anything from unsolicited e-mail ads. Jack ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #3 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 8 00:46:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA22813; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:46:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:46:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080546.AAA22813@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #4 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jan 98 00:46:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LA 911 Outage (Jay R. Ashworth) Wireless World Competition (Wireless Guru) Advance Program: SPIE/ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking 98 (K Jeffay) Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule (Chris Boone) Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer (Kim Brennan) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1997 10:38:41 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: LA 911 Outage Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA From the AP wire, with comment: LOS ANGELES (AP) - A failed switch caused the 911 emergency telephone system to go down for nearly two hours in the nation's second largest city on December 30. No unusual levels of crime or fire were reported during the failure Tuesday night as police scrambled to divert calls to local stations and the fire department sent helicopters aloft to scout for any signs of trouble. _Helicopters?_ Police routed calls through a backup system that uses shortwave radio. The city Fire Department apparently experienced a systemwide 911 breakdown and used alternative local telephone numbers that were broadcast over local media. "The system failed, but the people behind the system ... immediately placed backup plans into effect, similar to what they would do after an earthquake," said fire spokesman Brian Humphrey. Pacific Bell technicians determined the breakdown was caused by a switch failure in a number of circuits that all converge at the downtown dispatch center. The traditional single point of failure. This was, presumably, the tandem to which the LA PSAP connects? The Sheriff's Department's 911 system was operating, but people who heard about the problems clogged agency lines, Deputy Henry Garza said. ... but if it _was_ the tandem, how could this be true? Perhaps the county PSAP dies, and LASD operates another one? Police Capt. Mike Downing, who commands the city's Central Dispatch Center, said calls were rerouted to 18 local police divisions. The downtown dispatch center handles between 5,000 and 10,000 calls per day. I suspect "rerouted" is not the proper term, if the "911 system" actually "failed". A similar breakdown occurred last month. Which leads us to wonder what sort of failure mode analysis is being done? Are there different failures, or are the solutions not being figured out correctly ... or are the solutions simply not being _implemented_, and if not, why not? In the early hours of Nov. 10, hundreds of police officers lost normal radio communications with the city's 911 dispatchers for several hours due to a technical malfunction, possibly in a battery-charging system. Again, single point of failure ... Are there any readers to either digest situated to comment in more depth? The piece carries an AP copyright; I hope this has constituted fair use through commentary. ;-) And Happy New Year, y'all! 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: pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com (Wireless Guru) Subject: Wireless World Competition Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 08:01:21 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. During mid-December a California man was arrested for espionage in Russia. News reports say the man was a technician for a wireless phone company, installing equipment in Russia. Here's the news behind the news: Although probably not a spy, this man is more like a prisoner of war. The war is a global war being fought over which company will supply most of the world with wireless digital phones. The competition is so intense -- not just in Russia, but also in China, Latin America, and the rest of the world -- that it has now come to this: People being arrested and imprisoned. The stakes are huge: 2/3 of the world has never used a phone. And phone companies from American and Europe are fighting to be the ones to build equipment for this multi-billion dollar industry. Attached is a piece from Don Bauder, the Business Editor of the {San Diego Union}, and a column that appeared in the {LA Daily News} a month or so ago, which gives some good detail about what is at stake -- and why this battle is so important -- important enough, apparently, to put someone in prison. I have also included a link to a site that contains several other pieces documenting this fermenting war. There is also a link to a site that has been documenting this escalating war. ---------------------------------------------------- DON BAUDER Business Editor The San Diego Union 03-Oct-1997 Friday The grass is always greener ... on the other side of the ocean. Consider Qualcomm, San Diego's fast-growing telecommunications company. It competes vigorously with Ericsson, a Swedish concern. Ericsson pushes its Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technology. Qualcomm pushes its newer Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology. Recently, Expressen, a newspaper in Stockholm, Sweden, took its hometown giant to task. TDMA, and its Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) derivative, might be out of date, warned the paper's writer, stating ominously, "Thirty thousand jobs can disappear when the new technology (CDMA) takes over." Commented the author, "More and more experts are now asking themselves: Has Ericsson gone for the wrong technique?" A Stockholm stock analyst predicts Ericsson shares might fall. A Wall Street analyst expresses the same fears. The article quotes an unnamed insider at Ericsson, who says the company should push the older TDMA now, and then switch to CDMA later. "CDMA is the technology of the future," declares the article. Ericsson, which once denounced CDMA, now claims it owns important rights to the technology, says the publication, quoting a Qualcomm executive saying that Ericsson doesn't even have a license for CDMA. Ah, but a prophet is seldom appreciated at home. Qualcomm is getting bad press here -- specifically, in the Sept. 8 issue of the magazine Telephony. "Of the numerous manufacturers of CDMA, Qualcomm is among the smallest," says the magazine. "The number of people in the world with CDMA phones is dwarfed by the millions who are using other types." The magazine did a long study of CDMA, and concluded that its capacity is far less than advertised, it has problems when subscriber growth is burgeoning and it "is far from being as mature as other digital wireless technologies." Says the publication, "Unfortunately, any meaningful dialogue among operators and vendors to solve inherent problems in the standard has been muted by a crusade to establish CDMA as a viable technology at all costs." Discussions of ways to correct the problems in Qualcomm's system "have been intentionally suppressed while the benefits have been hyped beyond all reason," says Telephony. Then in a long discussion, the magazine asks whether Qualcomm's version of CDMA costs too much in relation to its benefits. The question of whether Qualcomm "will ever carry home the trophy of digital wireless champion is far from certain," says Telephony. Forbes, however, offers a bit of a mea culpa in its Oct. 6 issue. "We were skeptical" about CDMA, says the magazine, referring to a late 1995 story. Now, however, "CDMA has caught on surprisingly fast," says the magazine. CDMA should have 45 percent of the U.S. mobile phone market by 2004, according to the Yankee Group consulting firm, says Forbes. ***************************************************** For a complete reprint of the Espressen article of June '97 and other related postings, go to: Digital Wireless Phone Digest ****************************************************** >From Los Angeles Daily News "FAST-TRACK" MASKS REAL ISSUE: U.S. BUSINESSES AHEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CREATING JOBS; FREE TRADE THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP IT UP by Brian P. Devine 11/08/97 FORGET NAFTA and "fast-track." That's not the biggest story on international trade. By itself, fast-track won't create one job or make one sale for an American company. Only American companies can do that. And they are - all over the world. Including companies from Southern California. The troubling part of the fast-track debate is that some people believe that international trade is bad for America and American jobs. And that is a bigger story than the NAFTA/fast-track controversy. It's clear from the "Stop foreign trade, save American jobs" tenor of the discussion over fast-track that many people are not aware of how many American jobs are created right now through trade. For example, around the world, American companies are waging a good old fashioned trade war over a new kind of telephone called wireless digital phones. All Americans need to know about this new war is that telephone companies in America, Europe and Asia are drooling over the two-thirds of the people on this planet who have never used a telephone. And providing billions of new phones for the world will create hundreds of thousands of jobs - either here, or in Europe and Asia. So the stakes are huge. Traditional phone systems require copper, roads, wire, technical expertise, laws, and other infrastructure that we take for granted, but that most of the world simply does not have. Perhaps a part of a country is too remote, or mountainous, or wire laid in the morning is stolen by the next day. Whatever the reason, for the first time, phone companies around the world think the new wireless digital phone systems will enable them to provide phones to these people. Billions of phones. That is because these new wireless digital phones are so powerful that countries will not need the roads, copper, and much of the other infrastructure to install them. Just a few base stations and handsets. Wireless digital phones are instant infrastructure. A quantum leap that, for many countries, will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure they will ever get. An instant passport into the Information Age. But not all wireless phones are created equal - and here is where the battle begins for American companies. Countries around the world are deciding - even as you read this - whether to use the newer, more powerful, American-backed standard, called CDMA; or the 20-year-old European standard, variously called TDMA or GSM. The European companies like the TDMA standard because they've been using it for more than a decade. It's not as powerful as its American counterpart, but it is more familiar. And because Europeans have billions invested in this technology - that although outdated, they think is good enough for some of the less demanding countries of the Third World - they are going to fight to get the most they can out of this investment. But if {The Wall Street Journal} is to be believed, the Europeans may be fighting a losing battle. {The Wall Street Journal} recently reported that South Korea had created tens of thousands of jobs and become a telecommunications powerhouse in Asia because it had backed, early on, the American CDMA standard. Other journals report TDMA systems in Europe cause problems with medical devices such as pacemakers and hearing aids. (So much so that one wag says that TDMA really stands for Terminally Disables Medical Appliances.) In journals and newspapers across the U.S. and in Sweden, Mexico, Brazil and Korea, the drumbeat for the American CDMA technology is getting louder and louder as its superiority is demonstrated over and over throughout the world. One of the biggest proponents of TDMA is in Sweden. But even this company's hometown paper, Expressen, recently reported that Swedish telecom engineers and others fear that Sweden will lose 30,000 jobs because their country's most important export is based on a soon-to-be obsolete technology. All this has little to do with NAFTA. Left to their own devices, American companies are quite capable of winning this war over telecommunications standards. The most troubling aspect of the NAFTA/fast-track debate is that American politicians in Washington seem to be uncertain about our place in the world economy. That means, more than just raising or lowering a few tariffs, our leaders may not be devoting the resources to the educational and trade infrastructure that will help our companies compete in the global economy. That's bigger than NAFTA, more important than fast-track and the biggest reason why hundreds of thousands of Americans will be creating products for export around the globe. Or not. ------------------------------ From: jeffay@cs.unc.edu (Kevin Jeffay) Subject: Advance Program: SPIE/ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking '98 Date: 7 Jan 1998 19:28:00 -0500 Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Advance Program & Call for Participation SPIE/ACM MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND NETWORKING 1998 San Jose, California January 26-28 1998 Conference Kevin Jeffay, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chairs Dilip Kandlur, IBMJT.J. Watson Research Center Timothy Roscoe, Persimmon I.T., Inc. Program Peter Beadle, University of Wollongong Committee Ming-Syan Chen, National Taiwan University Wu-Chi Feng, Ohio State University Martin Freeman, Philips Research J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, U.C. Santa Cruz Anoop Gupta, Stanford University Mark Hayter, DEC Systems Research Center Sugih Jamin, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Paul Jardetzky, Sun Microsystems Chuck Kalmanek, AT&T Research Ian Leslie, University of Cambridge Sape Mullender, University of Twente Klara Nahrstedt U.I. Urbana-Champaign Guru Parulkar, Washington University Lawrence A. Rowe, U.C. Berkeley Debanjan Saha, IBM T.J. Watson Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University Doug Shepherd, Lancaster University Brian Smith, Cornell University Cormac Sreenan, AT&T Research Ralf Steinmetz, T.U. Darmstadt Harrick Vin, University of Texas at Austin Jonathan Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute Raj Yavatkar, Intel Corporation Hui Zhang, Carnegie Mellon University Registration & hotel info can be found at URL: http://www.spie.org/web/meetings/programs/pw98/ei98_home.html +------------------------------------+ | | | Register by January 7, 1998 for | | for early registration discount!! | | | +------------------------------------+ MMCN '98 ADVANCE PROGRAM ----------------------- Monday 26 January 8.45 am: Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00 to 10.30 am: Session 1: Multimedia System Development Tools Middleware support for distributed multimedia and collaborative computing, K. Birman, R. Friedman, M. Hayden, Cornell Univ.; I. Rhee, Emory Univ. Multiplatform simulation of video playout performance, L. Gharai, R. Gerber, Univ. of Maryland/College Park A Software-only video production switcher for the Internet MBone, T.H. Wong, K. D. Mayer-Patel, D. Simpson, L. A. Rowe, Univ. of California/Berkeley 11.00 am to 12.30 pm: Session 2: Operating Systems I Applying statistical process controls to the adaptive rate control problem: a framework for the streaming of hetergeneous streams, N. R. Manobar, M. H. Willebeek-LeMair, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr.; A. Prakash, Univ. of Michigan/Ann Arbor An integrated input/output system for kernel data streaming, F. W. Miller, S. K. Tripathi, Univ. of Maryland/College Park Measurement-based admission control and resource allocation for multimedia applications, N. Stratford, P. Barham,S. Crosby, F. Toomey, M. Huggard, Univ. of Cambridge (UK) Lunch Break 2.00 to 3.30 pm: Keynote Address: Enhanced Display Environments for Telecollaboration and Personal Computing in the Office of the Future Henry Fuchs, Federico Gil Professor of Computer Science, Univ. of North Carolina/Chapel Hill 4.00 to 5.30 pm: Session 3: Video-on-Demand Supporting interactive scanning operations in VoD systems, G. Apostolopoulos, Univ. of Maryland/College Park; M. Krunz, Univ of Arizona; S. K. Tripathi, Univ. of Maryland/College Park Modelling prerecorded compressed video streams for fast bandwidth smoothing implementations, W. C. Feng, M. Liu, C. C. Lam, The Ohio State Univ. A system for demonstrating dynamic service aggregation in VoD scenarios, P. Basu, A. Narayanan, R. Krishnan, T. D. C. Little, Boston Univ. Tuesday 27 January 8.30 to 9.15 am: Plenary Speaker Multimedia Communications: What's Next? Leonardo Chiariglione, CSELT/Telecom Italia (Italy) 9.30 to 11.00 am: Session 4: Operating Systems II Symphony: an integrated multimedia file system, P. J. Shenoy, P. Goyal, S. S. Rao, H. M. Vin, Univ. of Texas/Austin Adaptive prefetching for device independent file I/O, D. Revel, D. McNamee, D. Steere, J. Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Resource kernels: a resoure-centric approach to real-time and multimedia systems, R. Rajkumar, K. Juvva, A. Molano, S Oikawa, Carnegie Mellon Univ. 11.15 am to 12.45 pm: Session 5: The World Wide Web Characterizing videos on the World Wide Web, S. Acharya, B. C. Smith, Cornell Univ. Static caching of Web servers, Z. Liu, P. Nain, N. Niclausse, INRIA Ctr. Sophia Antipolis (France); D. Towsley, Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Resource-based caching for Web servers, R. Tewari, H. M. Vin, Univ. of Texas/Austin; A. Dan, D. Sitaram, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. Lunch/Exhibit Break 2.00 to 3.30 pm: Keynote Address: Low Latency Media Delivery in a Consumer Internet Service Michael Schwartz, Director of Server Engineering and Senior Scientist, @Home Network 4.00 to 5.30 pm: Session 6: Multimedia Applications Integrated audio-visual processing for object serialization and tracking, G. S. Pingali, Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs. Accelerating M-JPEG compression with temporal information, H. Boenisch, K. Froitzheim, P. Schulthess, Univ. Ulm (FRG) Cross-model retrieval of scripted speech audio, C. B. Owen, F. Makedon, Dartmouth College Wednesday 28 January 8:30 to 9:15am: Plenary Speaker The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet Alan Kay, Disney Fellow and Vice President of Research and Development, The Walt Disney Company 9.30 to 11.30 am: Session 7: Flow and congestion control Adaptive source rate control for wireless video conferencing, H. Liu, M. El Zarki, Univ. of Pennsylvania Flow and congestion control for internet streaming applications, S. Cen, C. Pu, J. Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Invited Paper 11.30am to 1.00 pm: Panel Discussion: The Future of Multimedia Research, Or, What Am I Doing And Why? Moderator: Lawrence A. Rowe, University of California/Berkeley ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:26:55 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Dallas, Texas Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Tom Crofford wrote: > What is the current schedule for implementing the new 101XXXX carrier > access codes? I believe there was a previous thread here regarding > implementation during the Summer of '98. I'm looking for confirmation > of the timetable. From what I saw on the FCC News Digest I get from the Commission, the 4 digit IXC codes were supposed to go into permissive dialing as of Jan 1, 1998, with end of permissive dialing sometime in June I think...I'll go back over it and post the info here ... a lot of small telcos have asked for and got relief from the start of permissive dialing ... but I think end of permissive dialing is a set date and noone has been granted a waiver ... YET! Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1998 08:55:51 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule Tom Crofford wrote: > What is the current schedule for implementing the new 101XXXX > carrier access codes? I believe there was a previous thread here > regarding implementation during the Summer of '98. I'm looking for > confirmation of the timetable. Actually, the question should be 'what is the mandatory date of when existing 10-XXX+ CACs _must_ be dialed as 101-0XXX+'. For about two (maybe three) years now, there _have_ been assigned CACs of the new format 101-XXXX+ in the 101-5XXX+ and 101-6XXX+ ranges. And since that time two or three years ago, where the new format has been dialable, existing 10-XXX+ CACs _have_ been _permissively_ dialable as 101-0XXX+. In Spring 1997, the FCC mandated that as of January 1998, existing 10-XXX+ CACs must disappear, becoming mandatory dialable as 101-0XXX+. However, due to many replies (complaints) of resellers and other telecom entities, this past Fall (October 1997, IIRC), the FCC extended the date of mandatory dialing until the Summer of 1998, in the June/July 1998 timeframe. There is information on this at the FCC's website (http://www.fcc.gov), in various downloadable files at the "Common Carrier Bureau" section. While the FCC's mandates apply "de-jure" only to the US portions of the NANP (this includes Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, and Guam and the Mariana Islands in the Pacific - all of which have "Feature-Group-D Equal Access"), since Canada is also an _integral_ part of the NANP (and using the same pool of fg.D CACs/CICs), this FCC mandate would apply "de-facto" to the Canadian portion of the industry. Canada's own industry forums (such as the CSCN, Canadian Steering Committe on Numbering) and regulatory (CRTC) have been aware of the matter and have been 'mirroring' what is presently taking place in the US, regarding the expansion. The "non-US" but still NANP Caribbean (including Bermuda, the Dominican Republic, and other "British" islands of the Caribbean), AFAIK, don't have fg.D "Equal Access", at least not yet. But since they do participate in the NANP, 10(1X)XXX+ CACs are available to them for originating access if they ever decide to implement originating fg.D "Equal Access". And "Caribbean-based" NANP carriers/entities/etc. can also apply to NANPA for their _own_ 101-XXXX+ CACs, available from the same NANP pool. Since there had been _no_ assigned 10-XXX+ CACs of the format 10-10X+, 10-15X+, 10-16X+, it was possible for Bellcore and the Industry to develop an expansion program, back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. However, I _don't_ yet know when NANPA (soon to be Lockheed-Martin) will begin assigning _new_ CACs format ranges 101-1XXX+ thru 101-4XXX+, and 101-7XXX+ thru 101-9XXX+. HOPEFULLY, enough players in the Industry (particularly COCOTs, Cellular, PBX, etc., as well as smaller 'independent' LECs) will have made existing 10-XXX+ CACs _mandatory_ dialable as 101-0XXX+ _BEFORE_ any _additional_ ranges of 101-XXXX+ CACs become activated! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:44:12 -0500 From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer The Editor continues: > And sadly, Steve Case and AOL have never had, since the early days of > that service, exactly a sterling reputation. I don't know how long > *you* have been a member there, but let me tell you the years past > have seen lots of mischief originate at aol.com, admittedly by users > as well as staff members and government agents. Users are not all I've been a AOL member for ten years. > angels by any means, but AOL's lack of any security at all for many > years was a netwide scandal. 'Screen names' were valid one day and > gone the next, with little or no way to audit or backtrack on who said > what. I can still subscribe there, set up a screen name to pollute the > net with one day and kill the screen name the next, letting complaint > mail bounce all over the place. Hmm, as I recall, AOL's email only got access to the internet circa five years ago. Yep, the marketing of accounts which were free for one month had detrimental aspects from an internet standpoint. The benefit for AOL was that there were a small number of bad apples in a large basket of new customers. As has been demonstrated with spammers, a few bad apples can cause ENORMOUS amounts of problems. Your basic complaint then hinges on your dislike of AOL's marketing scheme, which is designed to get as many people as possible to sign on to AOL with the minimum amount of hassles (security checks.) > It just seems to me Steve Case has always been *too friendly* with > government agents. Now, any responsible ISP will certainly respond to > a subpoena served upon him, a search warrant or wire tap order issued > legitimatly in response to the activities of some one or more > users. But with AOL it seems like instead of starting off with the > premise that they will respect their users' privacy as a default > arrangement, while making it relatively difficult to misbehave in an > undetected way (i.e. those ever-changing screen names) they instead > leave themselves wide open to every jerk who comes along and then > get the FBI to do the job *they* should be doing instead. PAT] I still see no evidence that Steve Case, aka AOL has been 'too friendly' with government agents. Cooperative in criminal cases, and as a guide in Parental controls situations, but I don't see where you get the idea that there is special treatment for government, call them spies, to entrap people. The whole AOL set up is such that ANYONE can be anonymous (not just government agents). Next you want AOL to do enforcement of laws, rather than the FBI (or other appropriate organizations). If that isn't an invasion of my privacy I don't know what is. The FBI, with proper jurisprudence is entitled to snoop IF there is reasonable cause. And AOL is entitled to request their assistance if they notice a problem. I remember several months ago a problem with inbound internet mail on AOL being EXTREMELY slow getting delivered. This was due to spam filtering, according to what I heard. It seems to me that what I read in your responses would lead to even worse performance on AOL in general to impliment the heavy security you seem to think AOL's service needs. I wonder how often people would use credit cards if it took 30-60 minutes to validate each purchase? Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, Red VW Fox Wagon GL, Black VW Corrado SLC http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Information Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo Questions should include "Duo" in the subject, else they'll be deleted unread [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Kim, you present some excellent responses to my original statements, and I am going to seriously consider what you have stated above. Perhaps I need to rethink some of my complaints about AOL. Thanks very much for responding. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #4 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 9 13:54:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA09428; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:54:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:54:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801091854.NAA09428@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #5 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jan 98 13:54:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CLEC's by Neighborhood? (Pat Miller) ... and *I'll* be on the Air Sunday (Ed Ellers) NANPA's Transfer from Bellcore to Lockheed (Mark J. Cuccia) Switch Translation and Default Routing of 911 Calls (P.B. Schechter) Qualcomm's "Prisoner of War" (Bob Goudreau) Book Review: "Cyber Investing", David Brown/Kassandra Bentley (Rob Slade) Help: Anyone w/Realtime Digital Switching Experience (Cynthia Creswell) Telecom Update 1/98 (Digital Wireless Digest) Listen to WGR via the Web (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Miller Subject: CLEC's by Neighborhood? Date: 9 Jan 1998 05:45:50 GMT Organization: Telephone Answerette Systems Inc. For a preview -- what I envision would be thought of mostly by building owners/businesses who's buildings/organizations may contain hundreds of phone lines. Instead this business now is a group of residence in a neighborhood. Have we ever looked at why there is not a big push for CLEC's in residential areas. They say it is not profitable, but is it. Perhaps not for a big group like AT&T, but for a neighborhood that may get together as a group, have fiber pulled a block to abut the area and plug a slick 96 or something into the CLEC serving larger customers (the neighborhood.) The CLEC with the fiber need not worry about the copper or end customers. Taking care of the end customers is the job of the CLEC (the neighborhood group) buying a connection to the fiber ring. At some point the neighborhood section may be bought out. No matter what the services may be cheaper, and new services may arrive earlier. High quality lines ... direct connections to the Internet, etc. The question I have is what costs would be involved? What equipment might one look for? How would one go about setting up something like this? Why hasn't this been promoted/tried? After all we are talking about doing it neighborhood by neighborhood where someone within the area (ma and pa) encourage it. Where they can possibly get nearly 50% of the phones in a rather dense area. Not leasing lines from Bell (or maybe so.) Not installing broadly where many 10% of the phones switch to the new provider; or the courts come in and say this big company is ignoring the poor area's. NO this is done by residents ... perhaps even poor ones. I just finished watching C-SPAN where one of the big wigs in the government who works with the communications industry said "I like to see Ma and Pop organisations." To paraphrase: They are the ones who make a difference. Pat Miller--Communications Consult+ full/expanded info on web/finger email/finger pmiller@tas-kc.com | http://www.nyx.net/~pmiller backup finger pmiller@nox.nyx.net | email pmiller@nyx.net voiceONEnumber 816-523-2474 | fax 816-968-968-5 (you-you5) ----------------------------------+Heartland TEC #145 155 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you want to run a telephone company for the people in your immediate neighborhood, be my guest. I imagine the established telco in your town would join me in wishing you the best of luck. Believe me, if it was at all profit- able these days (or did you plan to operate a not-for-profit cooperative society) the telcos would be fighting each other to do it. You plan on handling the billing, customer service, operator and directory functions also? Telephone cooperative societies serving small customers (i.e. farmers) were experimented with quite a number of years ago, but almost all of them eventually sold out to Bell as the times got tougher and the going got rougher. If you have a very rich 'mom and pop' who can put some money in it and wait around a few years to see any of it back, go ahead and try your proposal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: ... and *I'll* be on the Air on Sunday Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:16:39 -0500 Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] The TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Readers in the vicinity of Buffalo, NY may wish to listen to me on > the radio Friday night and call in with questions regarding the new > fee being imposed on telephone subscribers with more than one line. I > was invited by John Otto to be a guest on his program whch is aired on > station WGR, 550 kc on the AM dial. The show will be from 10:10 pm to > 11:00 pm Eastern time this Friday (tomorrow) night. Although WGR is > only a five thousand watt station, late at night the signal gets > around, so readers in other parts of the USA and certainly around the > east coast of Canada should be able to hear it." I'm tentatively set to be a guest on the Dr. Stan Frager show on WHAS (840) in Louisville, Kentucky, starting just after 9 pm (Eastern) on Sunday night. The show runs until midnight, but I expect to be on only the first hour. The topic will be invasions of privacy; my contribution will be to talk about how the Internet might be used by private eyes, stalkers and others to get the goods on a subject. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your show sounds interesting also. Is WHAS on the internet? If it is, people can listen that way if they are outside the signal range. I've found that WGR can be obtained on the internet at www.wgr.com. Good luck with the show! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:20:36 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NANPA's Transfer from Bellcore to Lockheed As many of us have known, Lockheed-Martin is taking over Bellcore's duties with regard to the North American Numbering Plan Administration. NANPA's facility at Bellcore in Piscataway NJ will close at 5pm on Friday 16 January 1998. It will open up at Lockheed-Martin's Washington DC facilities at 9am on Monday 19 January 1998. Lockheed is also going to be taking over local Central-Office NXX Code administration for those parts of the NANP under US FCC jurisdiction (all 50 states including Alaska and Hawaii, DC, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) over the next 12 to 18 months. These assignments have traditionally been handled by the dominant incumbent local telcos in each area code. Lockheed is also going to be handling more duties regarding local number portability/database administration. While at this time the new Lockheed-NANPA website comes up as "Under Construction", the mainpage URL is http://www.nanpa.com (also mirrored at http://www.nanpa.net). Bellcore and Lockheed have prepared various transition planning documents, press releases, etc., including a _FREE_ Bellcore NANP Planning Letter (PL-NANP-106) dated 23-December-1997. Some of these items are available for _FREE_ download from the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry website. The following URL gives a list of links for FTP Download (in MS-Word) of various meetings and documents regarding the transition: http://www.atis.org/atis/nanp/nanpdocs.htm Scroll down to the bottom of this page under "NANP Transition Task Force Documents". A printed/paper copy of the Bellcore PL-NANP-106 can also be ordered for _FREE_ from Bellcore's 800-521-CORE (2673) order center. Although NANPA is being transferred from Bellcore to Lockheed-Martin, Bellcore will continue to maintain the functions of the Traffic Routing Administration (TRA), which includes such documents and databases as RDBS, LERG, NIPC, NNACL/NNAG, BRIDS/BRADS, TPM-VH, etc. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: pb@Colorado.EDU (P.B. Schechter) Subject: Switch Translation and Default Routing of 911 Calls Date: 8 Jan 1998 19:28:20 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In Colorado, we are considering rate center consolidation as a means of conserving CO codes. However, rate center consolidation encounters a potential problem because of the way rate centers interact with 911 default routing. Currently, if the 911 tandem gets ANI from the 911 caller's serving central office, that information is used to route the call to the appropriate PSAP. However, if ANI information is not available, then the 911 tandem routes the call to a default PSAP iaccording to its incoming trunk group. This means that there needs to be an assignment of each CO code to a trunk group, depending on the default PSAP associated with the customers served by that CO code. If we consolidate rate centers to one, then there will no longer be a simple correlation between CO codes and PSAPs (since there are about 9 different 911 jurisdictions within the 303 area code -- which is the one in which we are considering rate center consolidation (this is because Colorado has very strong local -- or, anti-central-- government)). We have been informed, however, that at least NorTel (DMS-100 and DMS-10), Ericson, and Siemens switches have a field in translations (EMR, in the NorTel switches) that is specifically for routing 911 calls (one of the smaller companies in Colorado uses this field--they use it first to route a call over a specific trunk group to the 911 tandem, and then, as a backup (if that trunk group, or the 911 tandem, is down), to the appropriate PSAP's serving central office. Finally, my question: Do "all" switches have this "EMR" field in their translations? In particular, do Lucent 5ESS switches? (Representatives of a company that uses 5ESSs think that they do not, but they don't work in translations, specifically.) Thanks in advance for any replies. PB Schechter pb.schechter@dora.state.co.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:16:09 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Qualcomm's "Prisoner of War" Wireless Guru (pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com) wrote: > During mid-December a California man was arrested for espionage in > Russia. News reports say the man was a technician for a wireless > phone company, installing equipment in Russia. > Here's the news behind the news: Although probably not a spy, > this man is more like a prisoner of war. The war is a global war being > fought over which company will supply most of the world with wireless > digital phones. Actually, he is no longer a prisoner, and it now looks like the Russian federal government is hoping the whole thing (an embarrassing mistake by a local-level government agency) can fade quietly away. The American in question, Richard Bliss, was arrested in November (not December) for the "crime" of using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment to survey the Rostov-on-Don area for suitable antenna locations to be used by the area's new mobile phone system. None of this should have been a surprise to the local authorities, as Bliss is an employee of Qualcomm, which won the contract to install the system. The Russian government eventually let Bliss return to the US just before Christmas, on the promise that he would return to Russia this month to continue the legal proceedings. This release in itself was a pretty obvious admission that the arrest was a goof-up, since it is inconceivable that the FSB (one of the KGB's successor agencies) would let someone they *really* believed to be a spy to walk free. The latest news (see http://www.newsline.org/newsline/1998/01/080198.html or today's http://www.reuters.com/briefing/) is that the Russian government still hasn't formally asked Bliss to return to Russia, and now looks unlikely to do so. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:25:42 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Cyber Investing", David L. Brown/Kassandra Bentley Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCYBINV.RVW 970408 "Cyber Investing", David L. Brown/Kassandra Bentley, 1995, 0-471-11926-1 %A David L. Brown %A Kassandra Bentley %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1995 %G 0-471-11926-1 %I Wiley %O 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 lwhiting@jwiley.com %P 286 %T "Cyber Investing: Cracking Wall Street with Your Personal Computer" I am quite willing to grant you that an investment strategy and plan is better than no plan at all. I am even willing to grant that the strategies outlined in the book are prudent. (I am less willing to be enthusiastic about a book that counsels you to accept a growth rate of 15% but admits that any monkey with a handful of darts can make 13%.) So, why do the first few chapters remind me so strongly of those "get rich quick" infomercials on late night TV? The book is long on strategy, and the strategies can be helpful whether you have a computer or not. Of course, they are far easier to use if you have a computer to do the bull work and searching for you, rather than calculating your way through a bunch of stocks (chosen by dart?) until one matches the strategy. Actually, the computer tools don't get mentioned too often. And what gets the shortest shrift is the fact that you need data -- lots of data -- to make it work. While sometimes producing excellent titles, Wiley does seem to have this predilection for overpriced marketing pamphlets. One of the authors of this book works for the company that makes the software that comes on the included disks. Surprise! Of course, you do get a thirty-day free trial. (Given the recommended complexity of the search strategies, thirty days full-time work would be a bare minimum time to get used to the software.) And buried at the bottom of the book, you find one (1) mention that the online service behind the software costs almost a dollar an hour ... copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCYBINV.RVW 970408 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:35:04 -0500 From: pulaki@aol.com (Cynthia Creswell) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Help: Anyone w/Realtime Digital Switching Experience To whom it may concern, I need some advice with a digital switch I have up and running which is having some problems. SETUP: 166MHz Pentium/128MB ram/512k cache/3GB IDE HD/Ethernet card on a peer-peer OS/2 network; 4 T1s connected to 4 NMS AGT1 cards (96 ports) connected via a DSU for voltage control; OS/2 Warp 4.0, DB/2 ver 2.1, Call processing software programmed using Mastermind Technology's MasterVox program; WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT: We process debit cards ... quite successfully until recently. The problem I believe is related to increased traffic. THE PROBLEM: The way we have it set up, we should be able to process 48 simultaneous incoming calls. Until recently, all things were running smoothly on a continuous basis. We were processing up to 34 calls at once without incident. Then, sales increased and our concurrent usage at peek hours increased to 38-40 calls -- and all hell broke loose. I am finding that at peek times when we reach this new ceiling, the computer simply locks up and I need to reboot to get back up and running -- not a good situation when callers are trying to get thru. I am certain that there is plenty of RAM. The processor gauge at the top of the screen is not peeking so I believe the processor speed is adequate. I have adjusted the DB/2 database configuration parameters to the best of my knowledge to allow up to 100 concurrent connections to the DB (although some further tweeking here may be necessary). I'm really not sure what could be the cause of this traffic problem and I can't find anyone else who is doing this. We are toying with the idea of moving the DB to another machine on a peer to peer network to decrease processing on the call processing machine (we also have another switch to hook up to it as well). We are also considering mirroring the switch to cover our butts when the thing locks up, etc. I guess I am looking for anyone with some experience with this to suggest some changes to make (i.e faster machine, different DB, different OS, etc.) I know other people are doing this with even greater traffic than I am looking at, but can't find them. Any thoughts? Thank you kindly for any and all responses. Cynthia Creswell Pulaki@aol.com ( that's Pulaki ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:02:04 PST From: McCarthy_telecom@phoenix.edu (Michael McCarthy) Reply-To: digital_telecom@phoenix.edu Subject: Telecom Update 1/98 DIGITAL WIRELESS DIGEST January 5, 1998 A digital publication for investors and professionals in the field of Telecommunications. ************************************************************************ Chicago Sun-Times: CDMA Orders "Pouring In." TDMA "Out Of The Picture."... The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that CDMA orders are "pouring in" from around the world. In a December 26th story, Sun-Times says telephone manufacturers such as Motorola have a "new edge" with "code division multiple access, or CDMA, which has been generating a lot of interest among the new digital phone services in the United States, Latin America and Asia." According to Motorola's Gene Delaney, "We expected good market acceptance for CDMA. It offers cellular operators greater capacity. And subscribers appreciate the voice quality." "Delaney said the attraction of CDMA is that it allows operators to offer a greater number of calls than possible with other technologies while delivering calls with near-land-line voice quality. Cellular companies that use CDMA can fit three to four times the number of call channels on the same bandwidth as competing digital technologies." Clint McClellan, a wireless industry analyst with Dataquest in San Jose, Calif., said Motorola has chosen wisely in technologies. "They didn't put all their eggs in one basket, and they also didn't invest in more limited technologies," he said. About half of the contracts for new and expanded cellular systems are for CDMA. McClellan said that because they miscalculated CDMA's potential, major competitors, such as Ericcson and Nokia, are out of the picture for the present. ***************************************************************** EL LATINO: "TDMA Would Be A Disaster For Mexico."... As wireless digital phone wars heat up in Latin America, America's largest Spanish-language newspaper, El Latino, has weighed in: "TDMA would be a disaster for Mexico" because of the "damage it would do to Mexican companies and workers who would be forced to try and compete in the world market with a second class system. This new phone system will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure in Mexico over the next twenty years. It will open up most of Mexico to voice, fax, and computer communications in way that most of us never thought possible." "But today it is possible. And the benefits of getting the best system -- CDMA -- are enormous: Better phones, less expensive phones, and thousands of new jobs. "The drawbacks of installing an out-of-date, inferior, even dangerous TDMA system are equally enormous. We must choose wisely. And not just between CDMA and TDMA. The real choice is whether we want Mexico to have a Third World communications system for an economy whose only asset is cheap labor. Or do we want a new system for the new Information Age, where Mexicans are using the latest technology to learn new skills and create new jobs to fuel a new, growing, economy. It's an easy choice." (Translation provided by author.) ******************************************************************* From Canada's ATLANTIC CHAMBER JOURNAL, January 1998 ... Telecom writer Silas DeMorte tells us to "Forget Fast Track" because the real focus should be on the escalating international business war within the digital wireless arena. "Wireless digital phones are instant infrastructure," says DeMorte. " A quantum leap that, for many countries, will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure they will ever get. An instant passport into the Information Age. "But not all wireless phones are created equal -- and here is where the battle begins for American companies. Countries around the world are deciding -- even as you read this -- whether to use the newer, more powerful, American-backed standard, called CDMA; or the twenty-year old European standard, variously called TDMA or GSM." DeMorte goes on to state that "European companies like the TDMA standard because they've been using it for more than a decade. It's not as powerful as its American counterpart, but it is more familiar. And because Europeans have billions invested in this technology -- that although outdated, they think is good enough for some of the less demanding countries of the Third World -- they are going to fight to get the most they can out of this investment. "But if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, the European may be fighting a losing battle. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Korean had created tens of thousands of jobs and become a telecommunications powerhouse in Asia because it had become, early on, the American CDMA standard." He touches upon many documented hazards linked to TDMA, reporting that "...other journals report TDMA systems in Europe cause problems with medical devices such as pacemakers and hearing aids. (So much so that one wag says that TDMA really stands for Telephones Destroy Medical Accessories.)" DeMorte finishes his piece with the observation that "from Forbes to the Los Angeles Times to technical phone journals to foreign language papers in Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, and Korea, the drum beat for the American CDMA technology is getting louder and louder as its superiority is demonstrated over and over throughout the world." ******************************************************************** For related topics or forum postings, go to: "http://members.aol.com/pbdevine/diginews.html" ******************************************************************** Feel free to offer submissions or feedback to: Michael McCarthy, Publisher 1807 Maple St. Wilmington, DE 19805 302-996-2691 mickmcart@prodigy.net ------------------------------ From: ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Listen to WGR via the Web Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 13:45:00 EST Just a reminder to readers that if you want to hear me on the radio Friday night discussing telecom topics in general and the matter of additional charges for second lines you may do so by tuning in to WGR, Buffalo, NY on Friday night at 10:10 pm Eastern (9:10 pm Central) time. WGR is 550kc on the AM band at 5000 watts, so they should be receivable around a lot of the eastern USA and parts of Canada. But you can also listen over internet at http://www.wgr.com ... Actually when I tested it that way yesterday, I was not able to ever connect with their server, but when I went instead to a service like Real Media Guide and entered from their link instead, it went through fine. The show is hosted by John Otto and takes phone calls, so perhaps some of you will want to call in. It will last for fifty minutes, until 11:00 pm. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 20:07:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA29353; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140107.UAA29353@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #6 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 20:07:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wireless Companies Hide Towers (Greg Monti) South Korean Telecom Engineer Needs Advice (Jongwoo Park) AT&T and MLM Together at Last! (Wayne Dolesman) UCLA Short Course: Communication Systems Using Digital Signal (B Goodin) Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Donald M. Heiberg) Teleport ATT Merger (Richard Barnaby) Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers (Eli Mantel) FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? (Steve Krauster) Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories (Bill McMullin) Re: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX (dlover@dave-world.net) Any Other Newsgroups For Telephone Technology? (Steve Krauster) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:45:29 From: Greg Monti Subject: Wireless Companies Hide Towers In the January 11, 1998, edition of _The New York Times_ (on page 17 in the national edition), therer's a story entitled "Phone Companies Seeking to be Heard and Not Seen; Wireless Antennas Hide in 'Stealth Towers'" by Andrew C. Revkin. A summary: With the explosion of PCS companies, some areas now have eight wireless phone companies competing. All eight need to have towers to communicate with mobile phones. Beautification efforts and cranky neighbors have caused some cell site applications to be denied. Town councils and zoning boards don't want to outlaw cellular phones entirely, they just want to minimize the number and unsightliness of transmission towers. This requires either sharing towers among rival carriers or camouflaging them. Two sites are described, with photographs. One is a strangely mechanical-looking 100-foot pine tree located in the side yard of a nursery in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. Wireless antennas are hidden among the imitation branches and pine needles well above ground level. The tree serves AT&T, Bell Atlantic Mobile and Omnipoint. The other photo shows a fiberglass extension of a church steeple with cellular antennas hidden inside, in Derby, Connecticut. Other tales: in Mendham, NJ, a 14-story mock bell tower was built entirely as a cellular communications tower. In Phoenix one telco has applied to construct a 30-foot-tall artificial Saguaro cactus plant. More common places to hide antennas: on commercial signs a truck stops, on water towers, on the Green Monster left-field scoreboard at Fenway Park. Typical rent is $1,500 per site per month. The number of sites is being driven by wireless industry growth, along with new applications: some outdoor vending machines now use cellular to call home when they run low on stock. Federal law pre-empts communities from banning wireless towers outright, so they are resigned to getting all the parties, phone companies and complaining neighbors, into one room and hammering out negiotiated settlements everyone can live with. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Jongwoo Park Subject: South Korean Telecom Engineer Needs Advice Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:29:37 +0900 Organization: HANARO corp. Reply-To: xcode@chollian.net I am in South Korea. I'm working for a telephony company called, "HANARO". HANARO WEB site = http://www.hanarotel.co.kr/ DACOM WEB site = http://www.dacom.net/ HANARO is a Local Telephony and Multimedia Service Carrier in S. Korea. My company was newly founded last year, and is preparing services which will be provoded by the end of this year. These days, my company is also considering on the installation of Integrated Network Test-Bed, for various testing activities to be made. I was engaged to this project and soon I found some materials from advanced telephony carrier's experience in maintaining Network Test-Bed. If is there anyone who are working in telephony operating company which has test-bed network, or who knows the people who have experiences on this, let me know it. Materials, or E-mail address of the engineers will be very helpful to me. MAIL? : mailto=xcode@chollian.net NAME? : Park, JongWoo. Manager System Development Team 1 Engineering Planning Uint HANARO corp. Informations I need to get is concerning like follows ... 1. How many years has the TEST-BED been maintained? 2. For what the TEST-BED is being used? (%) Testing / Developing / Diagnosis / Fixing Problems in Network 3. How many personnels are engaged to operation of the TEST-BED? 4. Do you think TEST-BED is very helpful to your company? HAVE A GOOD LUCK, 13/JAN/1998 Park, JW. Seoul, Korea. ------------------------------ From: Babu Mengelepouti Subject: AT&T and MLM Together at Last! Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:52:05 PST AT&T: Do you really want a reseller of your products marketing this way? This is about the seventh spam I've received from this idiot. Whoever runs "boulevards.com" - Please deal with this spamming moron or I will notify your upstream provider. > From 46167440@juno.com Sat Jan 10 18:03:04 1998 > Received: from boulevards.boulevards.com (boulevards.boulevards.com [204.162.28.70]) > by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06832 > for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:02:53 -0800 (PST) > From: 46167440@juno.com > Received: from 204.162.28.70 by boulevards.boulevards.com via SMTP ( 950215.SGI.8.6.10/940406.SGI) > id RAA02833; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:36:46 -0800 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 98 18:32:51 EST > To: Friend@aol.com > Subject: AT&T and MLM Together @ Last!!! > Message-ID: <> > AT&T and MLM, > N-COM > This will amount for the biggest explosion in the history of MLM > MISS THIS ONE IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT!! > GET IN NOW!!! DON'T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY > OF A LIFTIME ON THE GROUNDFLOOR!!! > Ok so you think you're dreaming right? WRONG. AT&T has signed a deal > with N-COM. This MLM is going to be a billion dollar giant in its first > year and NOW has stormed into pre-launch and will explode the > advertising medium as it becomes official March 1st with celebrity > promotion. > DO NOT MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!! > OK so what is it? > Pre-Launch JUST STARTED 1/1/98 !!! > AT&T AND MLM > Don't wait! > We have just signed a contract utilizing the AT&T Network. > AT&T is the largest name in the telecommunication industry. We currently > have around distributors nationwide. This opportunity is so new and > so unique that the first 20,000 to 30,000 distributors will earn enormous > amounts of money in 1998. > We offer : > - 9.9 cents flat rate long distance service > exclusively utilizing the AT&T Network > - 9.9 cents flat rate inbound 800/888 service > - 16.9 cents flate rate calling card > - Prepaid rechargeable calling cards > - Collectable prepaid calling cards > - Multi-function prepaid calling cards > - Hottest technology - Virtual office > - Prepaid cellular phones > - Billed cellular phones > - Pager services > - Internet services > - Local telephone service > - Cable services > - Digital satellite services > - WEB TV > - and more!!! > MULTIPLE CONCURRENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM > > - Earn up to more than $4300.00 per day > - Substantial residual income potential > - Earn profits on your FIRST DAY > - Commissions calculated daily, 7 days a week > - Commissions paid weekly > - Multiple ways to earn commissions > SPONSORING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER! > With our Virtual Sponsor (TM) you can now have prospects automatically > signed up for you! > - Explains the program FOR you in 7 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES!!! > - Automatically signs AND places prospects for you > - Notifies you of your new downline > - Advertise and it signs up your prospects > - Patentable technology applied to MLM for FIRST TIME! > - 800 number works for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week > OK so stop drooling. I know you want in because you are going to get > rich sitting on the ground floor and only $110 locks in your position. > The best part? You don't even have to personally sponsor anyone to get > paid!! > IF YOU MISS THIS ONE IT'S YOUR FAULT!! > Call the fax on demand @ 205-922-1155 doc. #8049 > or 716-720-2721 doc. #1 > Then email me today with your fax number, phone number or email number > and I'll get you started immediately. Our new Virtual Sponsor will do > all the rest of the work for you! > This is not TPN, EXCEL, or TEL 3, We are going to Blow away ALL > competition! > Email me. Put in the subject box ATT and I will get back with you i mmediately > Kim Bailey > GrtBiz4U@hotmail.com > Thank You Very Much For Your Time !! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I got a few mailings from Kim also, each one saying the same as above. You'd think AT&T would not do business with marketing firms who use these techniques, but maybe they are not aware of exactly how the company is operating. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:23:05 -0800 On April 6-10, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in the rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are presented, along with trellis-coded modulation. Many traditional communication applications such as modulation/ demodulation, channelization, channel equalization, synchronization, and frequency synthesis are being implemented with new digital signal processing techniques to achieve high performance. The course analyzes these techniques, including multirate filters, I-Q sampling, and conversion between I-Q and real signals. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1595, which includes the text and extensive course notes. These course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:21:25 -0700 On January 2, the Colorado PUC released final information on 10 Digit Dialing and Area Code Overlay in Colorado, see http://www.puc.state.co.us/10dig.html Now the PUC is wavering, see http://insidedenver.com/yourmoney/0110code1.html Rocky Mountain News, Denver, January 10: Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing Education campaign will begin Monday. By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer Comparing it with getting a flu shot, the chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission said it's time for metro Denver residents to prepare to dial 10 digits to make a local call. The telecommunications industry and the commission have worked for months to prepare a $1 million public education campaign beginning Monday that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. A requirement to use 10 digits for local calls is scheduled to start June 1 in preparation for the new 720 overlay area code, beginning as early as Aug. 1. But PUC commissioners made it clear Friday they don't like the idea of imposing the new area code and still want to pursue alternatives. They expressed frustration at foot-dragging by the telecommunications industry. At the end of the morning's discussions, the commission said the education plan should proceed and businesses should continue preparing for 10-digit dialing. "This is the vaccination,'' Chairman Robert Hix said. But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring alternatives since an estimated 3 million of the 8 million numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of them have been assigned to companies. The commission has been seeking conservation of numbers in the last several months, but so far there's been little action. Commissioner Brent Alderfer was the most outspoken, saying the commission had been clear in ordering exploration of ways to avoid imposition of the 720 code. Among the options they want to look at: . Requiring wireless users to switch to 720 and giving the new area code only to future wireless users. The explosion in pagers and mobile phones is a big reason the 303 numbers are running out. Requiring those devices to use the new code might give 303 another six or seven years of life. State regulators rejected a wireless-only new area code last year because the Federal Communications Commission had ruled against such codes, saying they were unfair to the wireless industry. But states, faced with proliferating area codes, want to revisit the issue. . Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing long-distance calls. Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each of 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. The commission is starting public meetings with one Monday in Longmont to review whether to shrink the number of rate centers, which could free lots of 303 numbers. As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. That would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. . Waiting for local number portability to free more 303 numbers through pooling of numbers. Metro Denver residents this year are scheduled to start being able to take their numbers with them when they move. That might delay the need for a new area code, but the timing is uncertain. The issue involves regional centers and centralized software, said PUC telecommunications engineer Bruce Armstrong. Armstrong said a software deadline of mid-December will not be met until July. "We don't have a clue what that will mean for Denver,'' he told the commission. That's just one of the very unclear timing issues facing the commission. And that left the commission emphasizing that the movement toward 10-digit dialing in preparation for the new area code must proceed, even if a delay turns out to be possible. The current plan is to give only users of new numbers the new 720 code. But duplication of numbers between the codes will require everyone to dial 10 numbers. January 10, 1998 Submitted by Don Heiberg, Denver 303-589-1539 ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:10:24 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just wondering ... The Teleport/ATT merger is being heralded as a "great thing" by (it seems) everyone. Teleport has built its business (so it seems to me) by being IXC neutral. Since Teleport (AFAIK) was not competing in the LD area (to any great extent if at all), any IXC would feel comfortable placing their business with them rather than the ILEC in that city, all other things being equal. Now how will the *other* IXC's feel with ATT knowing all their business connections. If I were an IXC I'd be just a tad nervous. Does this portend well for other CLEC's to have business migrated to them? Does it *even* matter anymore :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:52:27 PST If there has been any media coverage of the new charge that long distance companies are now required to pay for each subscriber who has that company selected as their PIC, I have missed it. By chance, I did come across a legal notice about a $0.53 monthly charge for such a fee, but I don't recall the details. I do remember that the fee was to be charged to the customer if there was no long distance company selected as the primary interexchange company. My latest long distance bill from MCI contains the following notice: The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to each usage customer. I suppose we should not be surprised that this fee is being passed along to customers, just as the per-call charge for toll-free calls made from pay phones is passed along to the telephone customer who is ultimately paying the bill. But MCI is charging this fee even when MCI is not being charged, because not everyone who uses MCI has selected MCI as their PIC. In fact, MCI is charging $1.07 for each "usage customer"... perhaps there's one charge for interlata access and another for intralata access? By the way, I also called AT&T, and was told they filed a tariff update on 12/18/97 to allow for charging $1.50 per line after the first. I thought I had heard something about this, but am surprised it's being billed by the long distance company. I thought this charge was to be billed by the LEC. ------------------------------ From: antispam@bigmoney.idiom.com (Steve Krauster) Subject: FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:09:30 GMT Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) Is there an FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? Steve krauster@slip.net (the "from" field of this posting is bogus) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes there is. You will find it in the Telecom Archives. Go to http://telecom-digest.org PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:28:56 -0400 From: Bill McMullin Reply-To: bill@interactive.ca Organization: InfoInterActive Inc. Subject: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories Hey Pat, would you happen to have or know where to find a map of the U.S. showing the RBOC territories? Or, if there is one with more detail that would be fine too. Thanks, Bill McMullin InfoInterActive Inc. ------------------------------ From: dlover Subject: Re: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:57:13 -0600 Fraser Orr wrote in message ... > I remember when modems were still operating at 1200 baud, that you > could buy a device called an acoustic coupler, that you strapped onto > the phone, and it seems to me that this would surely work. It seems > rather an unsophisiticated solution though. Is it possible to simply > unplug the handset of the phone, and, using a suitably modified jack, > plug the modem in there? Even if it can't necessarily dial the number, > I would be happy to dial it myself. Depends ... Is it an analog phone or a digital phone? If it is an analog phone like on a Lucent Definity G3, you can run the modem right into the wall jack. If it is digital, then you'll ruin the port or the modem or both. If it is digital (and a Lucent Definity G3) ask to get an 8411D phone. It is a digital (DCP) phone that has an analog port on the back of it that is perfect for modems/fax/etc. You can NOT plug the modem into the handset cord of either type because of voltage mismatches. ------------------------------ From: antispam@bigmoney.idiom.com (Steve Krauster) Subject: Any Other Newsgroups For Telephone Technology? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:20:55 GMT Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) Are there any other newsgroups besides this one, comp.dcom.telecom, for discussing consumer noncomputer telephone issues? Like types of cordless phones, telephone wiring, answering machines, etc? Steve krauster@slip.net (the from field of this posting is bogus) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two that come to mind are these: alt.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom.telecom.tech. Both of those newsgroups had their origin from this one several years ago. In addition, if you look at the telecom web page (http://telecom-digest.org) you will find a selection of other resources worthwhile to visit. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 22:44:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08788; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140344.WAA08788@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #7 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 22:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada (Tad Cook) Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal- Huh? (Richard Barnaby) USWest Admits 3-Way Problem (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Monty Solomon) Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents (Tele Monster) Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) USN Communications News Release (Bryan Williams) The Microsoft Witchhunt (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:12:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 702 area code fight may split Nevada CARSON CITY (AP) -- Unhappy northern Nevadans are making emotional pleas to hold onto something that southern Nevadans might soon claim -- the state's 702 area code. Members of the state Public Utilities Commission heard northern Nevadans beg Monday to retain the 702 area code and assign a new code to Clark County, encompassing booming Las Vegas. Carson City eighth-grader Josh Growth recited a poem, urging commissioners not to let southern Nevada "coldheartedly seize" the number. Another student, Stephanie Jackson spoke of the coyotes, sagebrush and natural beauty of northern Nevada. Such beauty should remain in the same place as the 702 area code, she said. But the pleas may have fallen on deaf ears. The telephone industry proposes to give Clark County the 702 area code, which was assigned to the entire state in 1947. The rest of the state would receive an as yet undisclosed new code. Doug Hescox, area code administrator for Nevada and California, said Nevada needs another number because the 7.9 million potential numbers on the 702 code are nearly exhausted. He and telephone company leaders want to give the 702 code to Clark County because it is home to two-thirds of the state's population. That way, fewer telephone users would be disrupted by a change. A formal hearing on the plan will be conducted Jan. 20 in Carson City. The commission is expected to make its decision at a later date. Under the proposal, people outside Clark County would voluntarily begin using a new area code Dec. 12. Then, in May 1999, they'd have to use it. While students and retirees in northern Nevada lamented the proposed change, Clark County countered with some of its top officials -- including four legislators -- who said the 702 code should remain in the south. Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, maintained southern Nevada should retain possession of the code because Las Vegas is the "financial engine that drives the state." Rob Powers, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said other parts of the state have fewer tourists. Powers said 31 million of the 42 million Nevada visitors last year went to Clark County. While Nevada has been given two potential new code numbers, Hescox refused to divulge them until the plan receives commission approval. He expects that a third area code will be needed in the state within five or six years. That code likely will be put in place in Clark County. Because of that, Carson City resident Tony Marangi said, the commission should let the rest of the state keep the 702 code. "Clark County will go on like Los Angles and eventually need another code," Marangi said. "Why put off the inevitable?" ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:11:48 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: Propostion A: Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of the state have the new number. Proposition B: Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get the new one. I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like to keep their investment in stationery, etc. Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area codes? ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: USWest Admits Three-Way Problem Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:43 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] You may recall my message from a few months back about how US West had activated three way calling on all lines in New Mexico, with billing on a per use basis (.75). I mentioned that I didn't have a problem with per use billing, but that I thought that the user interface was a really bad idea, especially for the thousands of people that have no experience with flashing a switchhook. I called the business office and immediately deactivated the feature. Apparently, a large number of people are getting stung by this. From the 1/12/98 {Albuquerque Journal}: US West Admits Three-way Problem US West customers must wait a full two seconds between calls or risk triggering a new three way calling service at .75 per use, US West has told state regulators. [...] New Mexico customers, who been offered the three way calling service since September, have complained about getting billed for accidentally activating it. Consumers have also objected to not being warned about the problem. [...] The same three way calling problems have occurred in other US West service territories, including Colorado and Arizona. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:28:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids New Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids By CAROL SMITH c.1998 {Seattle Post-Intelligencer} It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone. The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to turn off his aids. But then he couldn't hear anything. Call it Catch-22. Turns out the new digital cell phones interfere with most hearing aids, causing disturbances that range from low-pitched buzzing to what sounds like a motorboat whine, a phenomenon that is frustrating consumers and the wireless industry. The industry is working on a solution, but no one knows when the problem will be fixed. ``We hope we're not far away,'' said Laura Ruby, manager of external affairs for AT&T Wireless in Kirkland. Even if researchers were able to fix the situation tomorrow, it could still be a year or more before products hit the market, she said. The push is on in part because aging baby boomers _ those born between 1946 and 1964 _ are showing signs of hearing loss at earlier ages than previous generations, auditory specialists say. The suspected cause is repeated high-level amplification of stereos, Walkman-type headphones and loud concert speakers. About 28 million Americans _ 10 percent of the U.S. population _ have some degree of hearing loss, according to the Better Hearing Institute in Virginia, a non-profit organization serving the hearing-impaired. About 7 million Americans have been fitted with aids, the institute said. But the numbers are increasing. ``Business is booming,'' said Brandon Dawson, president and CEO of Sonus, a Portland-based network of hearing clinics across the United States and Canada. ``We're seeing increasing numbers of people coming to clinics to be fitted for hearing instruments at younger and younger ages.'' Sales of hearing aids were up 15 percent in the first nine months of 1996 in Washington, according to the Hearing Industries Association, a Virginia-based trade organization representing companies that make or sell hearing aids. Between January and September, 35,831 units were sold in Washington. Audiologists estimate that about 17 percent of people between ages 35 and 54 could benefit from hearing aids, Sonus spokesman Randy Drullinger said. Indeed, the country's most prominent baby boomer _ Bill Clinton _ was fitted with hearing aids in October after experiencing difficulty hearing in crowded rooms and at noisy events. Audiologists blamed his hearing loss on his enthusiasm for the saxophone and a fondness for loud rock music. Raxter, 73, may not be a boomer. But like them, he wanted to take advantage of the latest in communications technology by getting a cellular phone. ``It would let me take the phone with me,'' he said. ``It would give me more freedom.'' Raxter assumed federal laws requiring telecommunications manufacturers and service providers to provide access to people with hearing loss would guarantee that a cell phone would work with his hearing aids. But the law is ahead of the technology. Complaints started about two years ago when carriers such as AT&T Wireless started using digital systems instead of analog devices, which don't interfere with hearing aids. Analog systems in older phones use a continuous wave signal to transmit sound information. Digital phones, in contrast, break the sound signal into bits of information, encoding it like computer data. The information is then decoded and reconverted to sound at the receiver's end. Digital systems can carry a lot more information, so the new digital cell phones offer features such as caller identification and message waiting that aren't available on analog cell phones. But all digital cell phones produce an electromagnetic pulse that hearing aids can detect, and it interferes with how the aids work. The task for researchers is to develop a hearing aid with ``electromagnetic immunity,'' Ruby said, which would allow the device to operate in a world full of electronic gadgets, including cell phones, without interference. AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital equipment. ``Right now all we can say is that as long as there are analog phones out there, we will continue to support them,'' she said. ``But as far as the future goes, nobody really knows. This technology is still so young, who knows what will happen in the next couple of years?'' The wireless industry, including manufacturers and carriers, has founded the Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Center at the University of Oklahoma to solve the interference problem. Hearing-aid manufacturers also are working on the problem and have created shielding devices to keep out unwanted signals. ``We're very aware of the technological problems with hearing aids and cell phones,'' said Pam Hurst, an audiologist with the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center in Seattle. The problem has been growing in the workplace where more companies are requiring employees to use cell phones for communication. For hearing-impaired employees, that presents a problem. It is also a problem for senior citizens, many of whom don't know the differences between digital and analog phones, said Gordon Nystedt, coordinator for Self Help for Hard of Hearing People in Washington. Nystedt's organization recommends all hearing-aid users try a variety of phones before buying one to see if any cause less interference than others. But Raxter and others want a more permanent fix. ``We are all waiting and hoping for research to find a solution for us,'' Ruby said. ``It will be to everybody's benefit to find a solution.'' ------------------------------ From: telmnstr@norfolk.infi.net (Tele Monster) Subject: Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents Date: 13 Jan 1998 21:52:05 GMT Organization: 757 Elite I recently bought a used Merlin 410 for home use. However, It didn't come with much (hardly) any documentation. I located some information on Administrating the Merlin Plus system thru a dealer's homepage. However, I am using the good ol' Merlin 410 and I don't believe it has all of these features. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good internet resource or other resource for obtaining the programming information for this system? The system (as said before) is a Merlin 410 w/ Feature Pack 1 and Music on hold. I am also looking for information as far as the different features from pack #1 and pack #2. So far I know Pack#2 adds broadcast page. There was another web page : http://www.dcpc.nci.nih.gov/help/Merlin.html Which gives some information. However, this is more for the user end. I noticed I was unable to change the ring cadence (the 10 button phones? BIS-10?). Any information would be appreciated. I'm thinking about putting together a WWW resource for Merlin systems. (Maybe others as well, as I stumble into them). Tele Monster www.757.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:41:26 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 115: January 12, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Buys Owner of ACC ** BCE Sells Bell Sygma to CGI ** PCS Suppliers Report Subscriber Figures Bell Mobility Clearnet Microcell Rogers Cantel ** CadVision Loses Case Against Telus ** City Dial Sold to Applied Cellular ** AT&T Canada LD Network Fails ** Bell Mobility Slashes Handset Prices ** Local Competition Clarification ** MetroNet Buys Three Local Resellers ** Teleglobe Plans 12% Rate Cut ** Telus Asks More Time for Digital Cable Trial ** Telus Forms Partnership for Prepaid Calling ** Mitel's Millard to Retire This Year ** Competitive Payphone Association Proposed ** ExpressVu Opts Out of Gray-Market Court Fight ** The Day 800 Died ============================================================ AT&T BUYS OWNER OF ACC: Telecom Update #110 reported that U.S. local carrier Teleport Communications Group is buying the parent company of ACC TelEnterprises, Canada's fourth largest alternative long distance provider. Now AT&T is buying Teleport for US$11.3 Billion; there has been no statement on how this might affect the Teleport/ACC deal. BCE SELLS BELL SYGMA TO CGI: Bell Sygma, BCE's computer consulting and outsourcing business, is being sold to Montreal-based CGI Group. BCE now owns 43% of CGI, with an option to buy another 13%. PCS SUPPLIERS REPORT 4Q NEW-SUBSCRIBER FIGURES: ** Bell Mobility: Bell Mobility reports 114,000 new PCS and analog subscribers in Ontario and Quebec in the fourth quarter, its first quarter of digital sales. ** Clearnet: Clearnet Communications won 50,676 PCS digital subscribers following its service launch in October. Clearnet's Mike business service gained 14,899 subscribers in the quarter, bringing its subscriber base to 44,549. ** Microcell: Microcell CEO Andre Tremblay says Microcell fourth-quarter results, to be released this week, will show a total of more than 60,000 PCS subscribers. ** Rogers Cantel: Cantel reported 63,000 new PCS/cellular subscribers in the fourth quarter. CADVISION LOSES CASE AGAINST TELUS: Calgary-based Internet provider CadVision Development Corp. has lost its court action against Telus for its failure to provide CadVision with equal access to ADSL service (see Telecom Update #114). An Alberta court ruled January 7 that co-location delay would not cause irreparable harm to CadVision. CITY DIAL SOLD TO APPLIED CELLULAR: Canadian Network Services, whose main subsidiary is City Dial Network Services, has been purchased by Missouri-based Applied Cellular Technology. City Dial provides flat-rate long distance services to about 4,000 customers in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. AT&T CANADA LD NETWORK FAILS: AT&T Canada's long distance network was out of service from 11:30am to 5:30pm (est) on Friday January 9. AT&T is investigating the cause of the problem. BELL MOBILITY SLASHES HANDSET PRICES: On January 1, Bell Mobility reduced the price of its PCS handsets to $269 ($169 for customers with a one-year contract). The previous price range was $499-549, or $199-$299 for two-year contract customers. LOCAL COMPETITION CLARIFICATION: CRTC Telecom Order 98-1 rejects Stentor's argument that only carriers offering unlimited flat-rate local service should be eligible for a contribution subsidy. The Commission also confirms that carriers are not required to operate as CLECs in all exchanges where they operate. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o981_0.txt METRONET BUYS THREE LOCAL RESELLERS: MetroNet Communications has bought three Western Canada Centrex resellers: VoiceTek Communications and Touch 9 Communications of Vancouver and ABTel Communications Alberta. TELEGLOBE PLANS 12% RATE CUT: Commenting on the CRTC's recent authorization of switched hubbing (see Telecom Update #113), Teleglobe says it will cut overseas rates by more than 12% this year. TELUS ASKS MORE TIME FOR DIGITAL CABLE TRIAL: Telus Corp. has asked the CRTC for more time to begin digital service on its Calgary and Edmonton cable market trial. Last month, the Commission told Telus to shut down the trial because it has failed to provide digital service. (See Telecom Update #114) TELUS FORMS PARTNERSHIP FOR PREPAID CALLING: Telus Communications has formed a national partnership with Calgary-based Revere Communications for joint marketing of prepaid calling cards. MITEL'S MILLARD TO RETIRE THIS YEAR: Mitel Corp's President and CEO John Millard has announced he will retire this year. He will continue as a Mitel Director. COMPETITIVE PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED: Cameron Stuart of Independent Payphone Management is organizing the founding meeting of the Canadian Independent Payphone Association. For information, email: ipm@interlog.com EXPRESSVU OPTS OUT OF GRAY-MARKET COURT FIGHT: ExpressVu, one of the Canadian broadcasters that recently filed suit against 18 gray-market dish companies, has withdrawn from the court action. (See Telecom Update #114) THE DAY 800 DIED: On November 26, computer crashes shut down toll-free service across Canada for several hours. In the January issue of Telemanagement, published this week, Ian Angus explains the causes of the crash, the measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence, and some crucial issues that have not yet been addressed. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:27:53 EST From: Bryan Williams Subject: USN Communications News Release NEWS RELEASE Contact: Andrea Weber Director, Corporate Communications 312-559-5311 Colin McWay Chief Operating Officer Connecticut Telephone 203-284-4703 Allan Jordan Golin/Harris Communications 212-697-9191 USN COMMUNICATIONS TO ACQUIRE CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE Chicago, IL (January 9, 1998) - USN Communications, Inc. announced today that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Connecticut Telephone, the fourth largest cellular reseller in the country. The acquisition will enable USN to add cellular services to its local and long distance product bundle, as well as adding the Connecticut footprint to USN's service area. "Cellular service is a critical and logical extension to our product offering," said Thomas Elliott, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "For our target market of small to medium businesses, cellular is a frequently requested service." "We are looking forward to joining USN Communications," adds Colin McWay, chief operating officer of Connecticut Telephone. "Their vision of offering a full complement of communications services corresponds with our strategy. We will be able to use our efficient and successful wireless service model to provide cellular products throughout the USN service territories." Founded in 1985, Connecticut Telephone and its affiliates resell cellular, paging, long distance, local and Internet service throughout Connecticut. Connecticut Telephone, the first Connecticut-based company to be certified as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Connecticut, currently provides cellular service to more than 64,000 subscribers and paging service to more than 15,000 subscribers in the Connecticut area. USN, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), offers one-stop shopping for local, long distance and enhanced communications services for small- and medium-sized businesses and adds value to business telecommunications products and services with a highly customer-focused sales and service staff. In 1995, USN Communications was the first CLEC in the country to sign a local resale agreement with a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC), Ameritech in Illinois, to provide competitive local services to area businesses. Headquartered in Chicago, USN Communications is a privately held company founded in 1993. It currently provides service in more than 40 states, with 34 offices in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Investors include the venture affiliates of Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, Canadian Imperial Bank, Fidelity Capital, HarbourVest Partners, LLC and Prime New Ventures. ------------------------------ From: Telecom Digest Editor Subject: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million dollars per day until he plays by the rules we have set forth. Rules, which I suspect were bought and paid for by Netscape, through their mouthpiece who will try to pretend he is a disinterested third-party and a concerned consumer. If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to remove the browser from their software-in-common on line and when a subscriber wants to 'go web' put up a message on the screen saying 'okay, bring up the browser you paid for of your own free will and start making your connections, etc ...' Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while leaving alone files which service various programs in common. Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including Real Player. And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to stop doing it? I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) at Bill Gates' head. And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this point? "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 22:44:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08788; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140344.WAA08788@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #7 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 22:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada (Tad Cook) Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal- Huh? (Richard Barnaby) USWest Admits 3-Way Problem (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Monty Solomon) Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents (Tele Monster) Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) USN Communications News Release (Bryan Williams) The Microsoft Witchhunt (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:12:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 702 area code fight may split Nevada CARSON CITY (AP) -- Unhappy northern Nevadans are making emotional pleas to hold onto something that southern Nevadans might soon claim -- the state's 702 area code. Members of the state Public Utilities Commission heard northern Nevadans beg Monday to retain the 702 area code and assign a new code to Clark County, encompassing booming Las Vegas. Carson City eighth-grader Josh Growth recited a poem, urging commissioners not to let southern Nevada "coldheartedly seize" the number. Another student, Stephanie Jackson spoke of the coyotes, sagebrush and natural beauty of northern Nevada. Such beauty should remain in the same place as the 702 area code, she said. But the pleas may have fallen on deaf ears. The telephone industry proposes to give Clark County the 702 area code, which was assigned to the entire state in 1947. The rest of the state would receive an as yet undisclosed new code. Doug Hescox, area code administrator for Nevada and California, said Nevada needs another number because the 7.9 million potential numbers on the 702 code are nearly exhausted. He and telephone company leaders want to give the 702 code to Clark County because it is home to two-thirds of the state's population. That way, fewer telephone users would be disrupted by a change. A formal hearing on the plan will be conducted Jan. 20 in Carson City. The commission is expected to make its decision at a later date. Under the proposal, people outside Clark County would voluntarily begin using a new area code Dec. 12. Then, in May 1999, they'd have to use it. While students and retirees in northern Nevada lamented the proposed change, Clark County countered with some of its top officials -- including four legislators -- who said the 702 code should remain in the south. Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, maintained southern Nevada should retain possession of the code because Las Vegas is the "financial engine that drives the state." Rob Powers, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said other parts of the state have fewer tourists. Powers said 31 million of the 42 million Nevada visitors last year went to Clark County. While Nevada has been given two potential new code numbers, Hescox refused to divulge them until the plan receives commission approval. He expects that a third area code will be needed in the state within five or six years. That code likely will be put in place in Clark County. Because of that, Carson City resident Tony Marangi said, the commission should let the rest of the state keep the 702 code. "Clark County will go on like Los Angles and eventually need another code," Marangi said. "Why put off the inevitable?" ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:11:48 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: Propostion A: Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of the state have the new number. Proposition B: Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get the new one. I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like to keep their investment in stationery, etc. Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area codes? ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: USWest Admits Three-Way Problem Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:43 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] You may recall my message from a few months back about how US West had activated three way calling on all lines in New Mexico, with billing on a per use basis (.75). I mentioned that I didn't have a problem with per use billing, but that I thought that the user interface was a really bad idea, especially for the thousands of people that have no experience with flashing a switchhook. I called the business office and immediately deactivated the feature. Apparently, a large number of people are getting stung by this. From the 1/12/98 {Albuquerque Journal}: US West Admits Three-way Problem US West customers must wait a full two seconds between calls or risk triggering a new three way calling service at .75 per use, US West has told state regulators. [...] New Mexico customers, who been offered the three way calling service since September, have complained about getting billed for accidentally activating it. Consumers have also objected to not being warned about the problem. [...] The same three way calling problems have occurred in other US West service territories, including Colorado and Arizona. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:28:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids New Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids By CAROL SMITH c.1998 {Seattle Post-Intelligencer} It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone. The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to turn off his aids. But then he couldn't hear anything. Call it Catch-22. Turns out the new digital cell phones interfere with most hearing aids, causing disturbances that range from low-pitched buzzing to what sounds like a motorboat whine, a phenomenon that is frustrating consumers and the wireless industry. The industry is working on a solution, but no one knows when the problem will be fixed. ``We hope we're not far away,'' said Laura Ruby, manager of external affairs for AT&T Wireless in Kirkland. Even if researchers were able to fix the situation tomorrow, it could still be a year or more before products hit the market, she said. The push is on in part because aging baby boomers _ those born between 1946 and 1964 _ are showing signs of hearing loss at earlier ages than previous generations, auditory specialists say. The suspected cause is repeated high-level amplification of stereos, Walkman-type headphones and loud concert speakers. About 28 million Americans _ 10 percent of the U.S. population _ have some degree of hearing loss, according to the Better Hearing Institute in Virginia, a non-profit organization serving the hearing-impaired. About 7 million Americans have been fitted with aids, the institute said. But the numbers are increasing. ``Business is booming,'' said Brandon Dawson, president and CEO of Sonus, a Portland-based network of hearing clinics across the United States and Canada. ``We're seeing increasing numbers of people coming to clinics to be fitted for hearing instruments at younger and younger ages.'' Sales of hearing aids were up 15 percent in the first nine months of 1996 in Washington, according to the Hearing Industries Association, a Virginia-based trade organization representing companies that make or sell hearing aids. Between January and September, 35,831 units were sold in Washington. Audiologists estimate that about 17 percent of people between ages 35 and 54 could benefit from hearing aids, Sonus spokesman Randy Drullinger said. Indeed, the country's most prominent baby boomer _ Bill Clinton _ was fitted with hearing aids in October after experiencing difficulty hearing in crowded rooms and at noisy events. Audiologists blamed his hearing loss on his enthusiasm for the saxophone and a fondness for loud rock music. Raxter, 73, may not be a boomer. But like them, he wanted to take advantage of the latest in communications technology by getting a cellular phone. ``It would let me take the phone with me,'' he said. ``It would give me more freedom.'' Raxter assumed federal laws requiring telecommunications manufacturers and service providers to provide access to people with hearing loss would guarantee that a cell phone would work with his hearing aids. But the law is ahead of the technology. Complaints started about two years ago when carriers such as AT&T Wireless started using digital systems instead of analog devices, which don't interfere with hearing aids. Analog systems in older phones use a continuous wave signal to transmit sound information. Digital phones, in contrast, break the sound signal into bits of information, encoding it like computer data. The information is then decoded and reconverted to sound at the receiver's end. Digital systems can carry a lot more information, so the new digital cell phones offer features such as caller identification and message waiting that aren't available on analog cell phones. But all digital cell phones produce an electromagnetic pulse that hearing aids can detect, and it interferes with how the aids work. The task for researchers is to develop a hearing aid with ``electromagnetic immunity,'' Ruby said, which would allow the device to operate in a world full of electronic gadgets, including cell phones, without interference. AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital equipment. ``Right now all we can say is that as long as there are analog phones out there, we will continue to support them,'' she said. ``But as far as the future goes, nobody really knows. This technology is still so young, who knows what will happen in the next couple of years?'' The wireless industry, including manufacturers and carriers, has founded the Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Center at the University of Oklahoma to solve the interference problem. Hearing-aid manufacturers also are working on the problem and have created shielding devices to keep out unwanted signals. ``We're very aware of the technological problems with hearing aids and cell phones,'' said Pam Hurst, an audiologist with the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center in Seattle. The problem has been growing in the workplace where more companies are requiring employees to use cell phones for communication. For hearing-impaired employees, that presents a problem. It is also a problem for senior citizens, many of whom don't know the differences between digital and analog phones, said Gordon Nystedt, coordinator for Self Help for Hard of Hearing People in Washington. Nystedt's organization recommends all hearing-aid users try a variety of phones before buying one to see if any cause less interference than others. But Raxter and others want a more permanent fix. ``We are all waiting and hoping for research to find a solution for us,'' Ruby said. ``It will be to everybody's benefit to find a solution.'' ------------------------------ From: telmnstr@norfolk.infi.net (Tele Monster) Subject: Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents Date: 13 Jan 1998 21:52:05 GMT Organization: 757 Elite I recently bought a used Merlin 410 for home use. However, It didn't come with much (hardly) any documentation. I located some information on Administrating the Merlin Plus system thru a dealer's homepage. However, I am using the good ol' Merlin 410 and I don't believe it has all of these features. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good internet resource or other resource for obtaining the programming information for this system? The system (as said before) is a Merlin 410 w/ Feature Pack 1 and Music on hold. I am also looking for information as far as the different features from pack #1 and pack #2. So far I know Pack#2 adds broadcast page. There was another web page : http://www.dcpc.nci.nih.gov/help/Merlin.html Which gives some information. However, this is more for the user end. I noticed I was unable to change the ring cadence (the 10 button phones? BIS-10?). Any information would be appreciated. I'm thinking about putting together a WWW resource for Merlin systems. (Maybe others as well, as I stumble into them). Tele Monster www.757.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:41:26 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 115: January 12, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Buys Owner of ACC ** BCE Sells Bell Sygma to CGI ** PCS Suppliers Report Subscriber Figures Bell Mobility Clearnet Microcell Rogers Cantel ** CadVision Loses Case Against Telus ** City Dial Sold to Applied Cellular ** AT&T Canada LD Network Fails ** Bell Mobility Slashes Handset Prices ** Local Competition Clarification ** MetroNet Buys Three Local Resellers ** Teleglobe Plans 12% Rate Cut ** Telus Asks More Time for Digital Cable Trial ** Telus Forms Partnership for Prepaid Calling ** Mitel's Millard to Retire This Year ** Competitive Payphone Association Proposed ** ExpressVu Opts Out of Gray-Market Court Fight ** The Day 800 Died ============================================================ AT&T BUYS OWNER OF ACC: Telecom Update #110 reported that U.S. local carrier Teleport Communications Group is buying the parent company of ACC TelEnterprises, Canada's fourth largest alternative long distance provider. Now AT&T is buying Teleport for US$11.3 Billion; there has been no statement on how this might affect the Teleport/ACC deal. BCE SELLS BELL SYGMA TO CGI: Bell Sygma, BCE's computer consulting and outsourcing business, is being sold to Montreal-based CGI Group. BCE now owns 43% of CGI, with an option to buy another 13%. PCS SUPPLIERS REPORT 4Q NEW-SUBSCRIBER FIGURES: ** Bell Mobility: Bell Mobility reports 114,000 new PCS and analog subscribers in Ontario and Quebec in the fourth quarter, its first quarter of digital sales. ** Clearnet: Clearnet Communications won 50,676 PCS digital subscribers following its service launch in October. Clearnet's Mike business service gained 14,899 subscribers in the quarter, bringing its subscriber base to 44,549. ** Microcell: Microcell CEO Andre Tremblay says Microcell fourth-quarter results, to be released this week, will show a total of more than 60,000 PCS subscribers. ** Rogers Cantel: Cantel reported 63,000 new PCS/cellular subscribers in the fourth quarter. CADVISION LOSES CASE AGAINST TELUS: Calgary-based Internet provider CadVision Development Corp. has lost its court action against Telus for its failure to provide CadVision with equal access to ADSL service (see Telecom Update #114). An Alberta court ruled January 7 that co-location delay would not cause irreparable harm to CadVision. CITY DIAL SOLD TO APPLIED CELLULAR: Canadian Network Services, whose main subsidiary is City Dial Network Services, has been purchased by Missouri-based Applied Cellular Technology. City Dial provides flat-rate long distance services to about 4,000 customers in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. AT&T CANADA LD NETWORK FAILS: AT&T Canada's long distance network was out of service from 11:30am to 5:30pm (est) on Friday January 9. AT&T is investigating the cause of the problem. BELL MOBILITY SLASHES HANDSET PRICES: On January 1, Bell Mobility reduced the price of its PCS handsets to $269 ($169 for customers with a one-year contract). The previous price range was $499-549, or $199-$299 for two-year contract customers. LOCAL COMPETITION CLARIFICATION: CRTC Telecom Order 98-1 rejects Stentor's argument that only carriers offering unlimited flat-rate local service should be eligible for a contribution subsidy. The Commission also confirms that carriers are not required to operate as CLECs in all exchanges where they operate. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o981_0.txt METRONET BUYS THREE LOCAL RESELLERS: MetroNet Communications has bought three Western Canada Centrex resellers: VoiceTek Communications and Touch 9 Communications of Vancouver and ABTel Communications Alberta. TELEGLOBE PLANS 12% RATE CUT: Commenting on the CRTC's recent authorization of switched hubbing (see Telecom Update #113), Teleglobe says it will cut overseas rates by more than 12% this year. TELUS ASKS MORE TIME FOR DIGITAL CABLE TRIAL: Telus Corp. has asked the CRTC for more time to begin digital service on its Calgary and Edmonton cable market trial. Last month, the Commission told Telus to shut down the trial because it has failed to provide digital service. (See Telecom Update #114) TELUS FORMS PARTNERSHIP FOR PREPAID CALLING: Telus Communications has formed a national partnership with Calgary-based Revere Communications for joint marketing of prepaid calling cards. MITEL'S MILLARD TO RETIRE THIS YEAR: Mitel Corp's President and CEO John Millard has announced he will retire this year. He will continue as a Mitel Director. COMPETITIVE PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED: Cameron Stuart of Independent Payphone Management is organizing the founding meeting of the Canadian Independent Payphone Association. For information, email: ipm@interlog.com EXPRESSVU OPTS OUT OF GRAY-MARKET COURT FIGHT: ExpressVu, one of the Canadian broadcasters that recently filed suit against 18 gray-market dish companies, has withdrawn from the court action. (See Telecom Update #114) THE DAY 800 DIED: On November 26, computer crashes shut down toll-free service across Canada for several hours. In the January issue of Telemanagement, published this week, Ian Angus explains the causes of the crash, the measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence, and some crucial issues that have not yet been addressed. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:27:53 EST From: Bryan Williams Subject: USN Communications News Release NEWS RELEASE Contact: Andrea Weber Director, Corporate Communications 312-559-5311 Colin McWay Chief Operating Officer Connecticut Telephone 203-284-4703 Allan Jordan Golin/Harris Communications 212-697-9191 USN COMMUNICATIONS TO ACQUIRE CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE Chicago, IL (January 9, 1998) - USN Communications, Inc. announced today that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Connecticut Telephone, the fourth largest cellular reseller in the country. The acquisition will enable USN to add cellular services to its local and long distance product bundle, as well as adding the Connecticut footprint to USN's service area. "Cellular service is a critical and logical extension to our product offering," said Thomas Elliott, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "For our target market of small to medium businesses, cellular is a frequently requested service." "We are looking forward to joining USN Communications," adds Colin McWay, chief operating officer of Connecticut Telephone. "Their vision of offering a full complement of communications services corresponds with our strategy. We will be able to use our efficient and successful wireless service model to provide cellular products throughout the USN service territories." Founded in 1985, Connecticut Telephone and its affiliates resell cellular, paging, long distance, local and Internet service throughout Connecticut. Connecticut Telephone, the first Connecticut-based company to be certified as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Connecticut, currently provides cellular service to more than 64,000 subscribers and paging service to more than 15,000 subscribers in the Connecticut area. USN, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), offers one-stop shopping for local, long distance and enhanced communications services for small- and medium-sized businesses and adds value to business telecommunications products and services with a highly customer-focused sales and service staff. In 1995, USN Communications was the first CLEC in the country to sign a local resale agreement with a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC), Ameritech in Illinois, to provide competitive local services to area businesses. Headquartered in Chicago, USN Communications is a privately held company founded in 1993. It currently provides service in more than 40 states, with 34 offices in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Investors include the venture affiliates of Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, Canadian Imperial Bank, Fidelity Capital, HarbourVest Partners, LLC and Prime New Ventures. ------------------------------ From: Telecom Digest Editor Subject: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million dollars per day until he plays by the rules we have set forth. Rules, which I suspect were bought and paid for by Netscape, through their mouthpiece who will try to pretend he is a disinterested third-party and a concerned consumer. If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to remove the browser from their software-in-common on line and when a subscriber wants to 'go web' put up a message on the screen saying 'okay, bring up the browser you paid for of your own free will and start making your connections, etc ...' Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while leaving alone files which service various programs in common. Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including Real Player. And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to stop doing it? I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) at Bill Gates' head. And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this point? "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. PAT ------------------------------ End of TEECOM Digest V18 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 23:44:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA12771; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:44:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:44:30 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140444.XAA12771@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #8 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 23:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AOL Accused of Privacy Violation (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pat Does Talk Radio (oldbear@arctos.com) ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Bill Levant) ClearNet PCS Service (Canada) Billing Surprises (Hardy Rosenke) ACM Policy 98 (USACM Washington Office) Microsoft vs. Netscape (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (James Bellaire) CLEC's Headquarter Location Info (John Stahl) Book Review: "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc (Rob Slade) Ameritch ISDN Usage Costs (Rick R. Cox) Re: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories (John R. Levine) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:13:57 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation Attention AOL apologists: I'll be expecting to hear from you today or tomorrow at your earliest convenience, reminding me once again of how poor AOL gets picked on unfairly. I *still* contend that AOL seems far, far to cozy and comfortable with law enforcement officials hanging around all the time. The message which follows was forwarded to me. PAT] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:40:07 -0800 (PST) From: William Knowles Subject: AOL accused of privacy violation America Online (AOL) may have violated its own policy and perhaps the law when it allegedly revealed the identity of a member to a Navy investigator. The United States Navy is recommending that a U.S. sailor be discharged for "Homosexual Conduct Admittance" because he typed the word "gay" on his member profile under "Marital Status." But the sailor, Timothy McVeigh of Hawaii (no relation to the Timothy McVeigh convicted of bombing the federal building in Oklahoma), and his attornies said that the Navy may never have been able to legally link him with the profile if an AOL employee hadn't provided his identity to a Naval investigator, violating AOL's own privacy policy. The Navy linked the profile to McVeigh after the military investigator called AOL and said he wanted to find out the identity of the person who had sent him a fax that belonged to the screen name. Without identifying himself, he said an employee named "Owen" revealed the name of the account owner as McVeigh along with his state of residence, according to transcripts of sworn military testimony provided by McVeigh's advocates. But AOL spokeswoman Wendy Goldberg said AOL does not release the identity of a user unless it is "presented with a search warrant, a court order, or subpoena. Federal law prohibits release of any personal information. We take this in our members' policy very seriously." When asked if AOL had, in fact, released the user's identity, she replied, "There is nothing in the transcript to suggest we gave out private information." However, others who have read the transcript think otherwise. "AOL appears to have violated its much-touted privacy policy and destroyed a subscriber's life," said David Sobel, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center."Every AOL subscriber needs to be concerned about this incident." The investigator said he called AOL and asked for the identity of the person who owned the screen name, according to the transcripts. The investigator, who did not identify himself, said that on Sept. 12 an employee in "tech services" revealed to him that the owner of the account was named "Timothy R. McVeigh" and that he lived in Hawaii. That information was enough to get McVeigh drummed out of the military, and privacy experts now are concerned about the privacy of other AOL members. AOL's policy states it will "not to disclose identity information to third parties that would link a member's screen name(s) with a member's actual name, unless required to do so by law or legal process served on AOL, Inc. (e.g., a subpoena)." Deirdre Mulligan, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said that when the Navy investigator called AOL seeking to connect the screen name with McVeigh, it also violated a federal law: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires that a government agency seeking information about an individual's online communication or subscriber information must go through an "appropriate legal process in which, at the very least, they seek an administrative subpoena." "The military clearly violated the law," she said. "They are not just allowed to call up and say who they are and seek information about an individual." She added that AOL may also have violated the law, which prohibits private companies from giving that information to a government agency. According to the hearing transcripts provided by McVeigh's advocates, the Navy investigator said he called AOL and asked for the identity of the person who had sent an email message without identifying himself. That may not matter when it comes to the question of the law, she said. "From the transcript, this person said he asked for information and it was provided without any check of who he was and his right to get information," she said. == The information standard is more draconian than the gold standard, because the government has lost control of the marketplace. -- Walter Wriston == http://www.dis.org/erehwon/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I said, I do hope the folks at AOL who write me from time to time complaining that treat AOL unfairly here will respond with the version of the facts as they see them. I see this as just another example of AOL's hospitality to the government; their willingness to violate the privacy rights of their subscribers whenever it suits them to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:19:15 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Pat Does Talk Radio Having spent an hour Friday night listening to Pat as guest on WGR talk radio (thanks to real-audio and the 'net), I must say that Pat is as rational and insightful "live" as he is in ASCII. This was not easy to do, as the talk-show host had a very clear political agenda and really just wanted to use Pat as an "expert witness" to prove the hypothesis that the second line access charge is just another example of the Clinton administration duplicitously imposing hidden taxes on the unsuspecting American public. Regardless of the politics, Pat did a great job of explaining that the access fee was only on second telephone lines and not a fee being imposed on the phone extension in the upstairs bedroom. I would have liked to have heard more discussion of the whole idea of using the phone system (if one can still call it a system) as a way of shifting expenses between one set of telephone users and another. Certainly this kind of cross-subsidization was the portrayed as the villian which prompted divestiture, but no one seems to be saying that "deregulation" is far from deregulated and that the cross-subsidy game is now just being played by different interests on a slightly different playing field. Pat did make the point that the "computers-in-schools" surcharge in many ways resembles the old doctrine of universal service. Unfortunately, I think this went over the head of the program host -- and probably many listeners as well. I appreciated the brief digression into the subject of discount long distance calling plans being not all that they seem. But it worries me that people will debate national telecommunications policy without being able to figure out that the five-dollar a month fee their "discount" long distance service charges should be considered in figuring their actual cost per minute for calls. Possibly the "computers-in-schools" surcharge should be redirected to teaching basic life skills mathematics. Anyway, Pat deserves a 'well done' for his keeping his cool and coming across as the intelligent voice of reason. Regards, Will The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your compliments. Others have said they also enjoyed the show. I wish he had kept me on for the phone calls which followed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:27:57 EST Subject: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Well, we finally broke down and bought one of those new-fangled Pentium computer thingies :-), but it is apparent that POTS dialup is going to be almost intolerably slow (when we were using the poor old 386, who noticed?). BA's web pages are generally uninformative. Is there anyone out there who actually *has* ISDN from BA-Pennsylvania, and can tell me : 1) What does it REALLY cost per month (exclusive of usage) 2) What usage is charged for, and how (is LD charged as usage PLUS toll, are incoming calls charged; does BA allow flat-rate voice-over-bearer?) 3) Are you happy with it? I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but I've come to trust those who post here; E-Mail is welcomed, so we don't drive POP (poor old PAT) crazy with off-topic posts ... Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS laptop I now have which was a gift from Mike Sandman has Pentium/Intel on it. As I mentioned before, it came loaded with Microsoft stuff. I made a mistake earlier in quoting the amount of memory in it. It has 16,134 kb of ram, and a 1.4 gig drive. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hardy@null.net (Hardy Rosenke) Subject: ClearNet PCS Service (Canada) Billing Surprises Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:43:19 GMT Organization: Home HARDware (!) BBS Reply-To: hardy@null.net (especially if you are in Greater Vancouver area) -- take note ... Check your invoice (if you've received it *__VERY__* carefully. On mine, there are NUMEROUS calls that are indeed local (verified by dialing from a landline) that I have been charged LD tarriffs on. They are mainly to new exchanges, which, after the 604/250 area code split are numbers that are being assigned for the first time in the "NEW" 604, but which used to have LD counterparts in the "NEW" 250/"OLD" 604. Just on my paltry one month bill, it amounted to around $8.00 in exraneous charges. When I called and got thru, I was told that they were aware of the problem and a credit would be issued on my next statement. I don't know if they are going to willingly go thru and GIVE BACK money, so I urge everyone to scrupulously check their invoices when they get them!! On a related note, I also checked to see that they had my credit card information on file for payment, an option that I took when I signed up with them -- suprisingly enough they did not, and I was a mere four days away from getting docked interest charges. Something else to harrass them about .... Regards, Hardy Rosenke Vancouver, BC ------------------------------ From: usacm_dc@acm.org (USACM Washington Office) Subject: ACM Policy 98 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:54:40 -0500 Organization: Association for Computing ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING (ACM) ANNUAL CONFERENCE * * * POLICY98 * * * "Shaping Policy in the Information Age" Washington, DC, Renaissance Hotel May 10-12, 1998 Preliminary Notice For Conference and Registration information see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/ The ACM Annual Conference will focus on public policy issues affecting future applications of computing. Our goal is to forge stronger links between computing professionals and policy makers. Attendees will interact with prominent leaders from academia, industry, Congress, and Executive agencies, and participate in debates on policy issues including Universal Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and Education Online. The conference will promote more regular engagement of computing professionals in democratic processes related to productive use of computing and information processing innovations. A blend of technical skills and policy insights are essential to cope with the inherent opportunities and dangers of any transformational technology. Continuing collaborations between computing professionals and policy makers will benefit citizens, consumers, entrepreneurs, researchers, and students. You can make a difference! May 10: Ethical and social impacts papers and panels May 11-12: Public policy panels and featured speakers All Policy98 attendees are invited to the Annual ACM Awards Banquet on Sunday evening May 10th, and a conference reception on Monday evening May 11th. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PANEL TOPICS AND COORDINATORS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Universal Service: Ollie Smoot What can be done to promote widespread access to the benefits of the Internet? What is the role of government and the role of the private sector in wiring schools, libraries, and medical facilities? Electronic Commerce: Jim Horning How much public policy does EComm need? What problems would inadequate, excessive, or misguided policies cause? Can compromises in areas like fair trade practices, fraud prevention, security, privacy, law enforcement, and taxation advance the interests of all stakeholders? Intellectual Property in Cyberspace: Pam Samuelson What will be the impact of the WIPO agreements on copyright in cyberspace? How should intellectual property be protected and what safeguards are necessary to protect libraries and academic institutions? Education Online: Charles N. Brownstein The Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for learning and teaching. What public policy and technical challenges must be met to realize these prospects? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Ben Shneiderman, USACM (U.S. Public Policy Committee) C. Dianne Martin, SIGCAS (ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Marc Rotenberg, Public Policy Keith Miller, Ethics and Social Impacts +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ REGISTRATION INFORMATION =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ For more information, contact: policy98@acm.org or to register electronically, see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/reginfo.html Early registrants and ACM members receive discounts. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:30:09 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Microsoft vs. Netscape Pat said: > I immediatly went out and got a copy of Internet Explorer 4.0 (the > latest version) to replace the version 3 which had come installed. But > I didn't stop there. I also got a copy of Netscape 3.0 and installed > it. As a consumer I also want a choice, and I have both icons on the > desktop ready for use.] Then PAT said: > Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or > the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then my > recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from their > computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] Isn't this contradictory, Pat? Choice dosen't mean deleting all non-Microsoft products, although I'm sure Microsoft would be delighted. I think that it's more than Netscape sour grapes, Pat. The real problem with Microsoft entering the browser market is that they are GIVING THEIR BROWSER AVAILABLE FOR FREE. It's just like the early history of the Bell system, when Bell went into a town to compete head-to-head with the family-owned telco that had served the people there for years. They put in a switch, built infrastructure, and immediately began giving THEIR phone service away almost free -- financially breaking their competition, refusing to interconnect, and eventually putting the "phone company family" out on the streets. What's the difference between this and Microsoft's behavior in the browser market? They GIVE IE AWAY FOR FREE. Netscape doesn't (except for academic use), nor can they afford to give a product that costs them a lot of money to develop away for free. Now, I am not discounting the fact that the Dept. of Justice just pulled out a boner the size of Omaha here, but that speaks nothing on the merits of the case. I think trying to put your competition out of business by giving your product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe that once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market MSIE will still be free? Or any other Internet related software for that matter? Somehow I suspect the party will end, just as it did in all of the small towns that Bell invaded. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:21:14 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? In TELECOM Digest V18 #1 Pat Townson wrote: > Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or > the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then > my recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from > their computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] Sorry Pat, but Netscape will remain on my machine. I decided against IE a long time ago. I have contact with two Windows 95 machines. An old 486/66 that has been upgraded in steps from Win 3.11 at home, and a new Pentium that came with Windows 95 and Microsoft Plus! that I use at work. (I also have Plus! on my home machine.) The work machine came with Microsoft's IE 3.0, my home machine has been a kind host to Netscape Navigator, as well as a Fasttrak server that I use for testing web pages. (SHTML, Livewire, all the tricks!) The existance of Internet Explorer on the work machine has changed the 'Internet' control panel, removing the 'connect on demand' option that is available on my home machine. Which means that a simple piece of software that I wrote to grab files (using the command prompt FTP) works fine on my non-IE machine at home, but not on the IE machine at work. Thanks to Internet Explorer I cannot run a simple anonymous FTP script from the command line or in a batch file. IE has caused a pain in this user's neck! And no level of uninstalling has allowed me to run my script on the machine it was intended to run on. (I need it to run on the office machine so it can post the FTP'd files through the office Novell LAN.) I don't like the way that Microsoft integration messes up software written by others, forcing further purchase of MS software. Netscape does not intefere with the normal operation of my machine. It won't be removed from my machine. As for the case ... It does seem that Professor Lessig has a conflict of interest, which is unfortunate. Microsoft's should not be requiring purchasers of Windows 95 to use their browsers. (What's next? Will they buy Rand McNally and prevent me from using DeLorme Street Atlas? I use as little of the Microsoft integration that I can.) It is a shame that these two companies can't fight fairly, with BOTH Microsoft and Netscape trying to write SOFTWARE that competes instead of legal briefs. Maybe we should delete both browsers from our systems. I have Lynx for Windows 95 on my machine and it seems to work ok. (But no frills.) James Bellaire (Still using anonymous FTP, lynx, telnet, and the command prompt. I even use tracert and ping occasionally!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have Lynx (the latest version) installed on my unix accounts everywhere (I have about five unix accounts through various universities, etc) and I love it. It allows me to browse via my old terminals which I use to connect with the net for working on this Digest, etc. I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I took the IE icon down from there and put a few others there which I wanted to use instead. I tend to keep the most used stuff on the desktop, and the tiny icons on the bottom of the screen for the lesser-used stuff that I want from time to time. Why not just edit yours to get rid of the IE thing if that is what you want? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net Subject: CLEC's Headquarter Location Info Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:07:01 +0000 Can anyone identify the following list of CLEC's? Have uncovered this partial list showing the state suspected of containing their headquarters. Have visited http://www.clec.com but these are not listed. Would appreciate knowing their locations and telephone numbers: The Phone Co. (PA) A.R.C. Networks (NY) KMC (NJ) MSI (PA) Thanks for your help. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:15:51 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKUSEUDR.RVW 970706 "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc, 1997, 0-7897-1166-4, U$24.99/C$35.95/UK#22.99 %A Dee-Ann LeBlanc %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1166-4 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$24.99/C$35.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 306 %T "Using Eudora, 2nd ed." With the explosion of growth in dialup IP Internet connections, Eudora very quickly surged to the front of the pack in terms of mail user agents. Until Netscape Navigator 3.0, it was the preferred program for local Internet Service Providers to hand out (not least, perhaps, because of the free version). Even the Lite edition has a number of advantages over both the Netscape and Microsoft products, and while Eudora is not as functional or flexible as Pegasus, it is certainly better known. Over the last few years, I have had numerous interchanges with email users, and even trainers, who, it slowly became clear, saw email exclusively through the Eudora screen. Therefore, I was delighted to find that LeBlanc starts with some basics, background, and fundamentals before jumping into the menus. At appropriate points (such as Styled Text) the reader is reminded that not everyone uses Eudora--certain special features are *not* universal. Netiquette is dealt with in detail, down to aspects of how much text to quote in a reply. The coverage of Eudora itself is clear, comprehensive, and logical. The most common, and necessary, functions are explained first, with advanced functions later. (Oddly, the one piece of information that most frustrated me when starting to use Eudora -- the keystroke to use to go to the next message -- was not covered in the text. It was provided in the quick reference chart.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKUSEUDR.RVW 970706 ------------------------------ From: Rick.R.Cox@ait4.ameritech.com (Rick R. Cox) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 98 03:31:23 GMT Subject: Ameritch ISDN Usage Costs Jack, I saw your request for ISDN usage info on TELECOM Digest V18 #3. I don't claim to know what analog usage rates are in Michigan so I won't comment on them. Your description of ISDN (BRI) usage seemed way off. Currently in MI, business usage for a local call (BRI) is $.0842 per call, per channel, untimed. Call it 8.5 cents for ease of multiplication. So it's possible to, for example, place a call to your ISP in the morning and let it run all day for 8.5 cents at 64k or 17 cents for 128k. Residential BRI gets 50 free, untimed, local calls per month as part of their standard price. Additional calls are charged at the same rate as business calls. Note: there are other residential plans available. These rates have been in effect since 11 August 97. They can be found on our web page www.ameritech.com/teamdata If the BRI line in question is older than Aug. of 97 they may still be under the old tariff which was grandfathered for one year. If you want to change to the new tarriff, call the Ameritech ISDN Provisioning Center at 800-432-4736. They can switch your BRI line over. If you have other ISDN questions feel free to call me, or one of my co-workers at 800-832-6328. I hope this helps, Rick Cox Data Design Consultant Ameritech Team Data ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 02:44:57 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Hey Pat, would you happen to have or know where to find a map of the > U.S. showing the RBOC territories? Or, if there is one with more detail > that would be fine too. There's a simple but adequate one on the home page at www.555-1212.com. RBOC boundaries follow state lines with only a few exceptions, e.g., Greenwich Conn. is served by New York, er, NYN, er, Bell Atlantic while the rest of the state is served by SNET, uh, SBC. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 15 02:48:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA11556; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801150748.CAA11556@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #9 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 98 02:48:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft Suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 (Gene Gaines) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (Tim Hogard) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred Farzanegan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Florack) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bud Couch) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Lombard) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Ewanco) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Richard Shockey) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Al McLennan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Christopher Wolf) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Lee Winson) Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape (Ed Ellers) Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:10:39 -0500 From: Gene Gaines Subject: Microsoft suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 Patrick, Good lord, man. Don't you know the history of Microsoft? Aren't you aware of the dishonest pressure tactics which Microsoft employs? I simply do not understand how you can be so far removed from the software industry. You are wrong, repeatedly, in your statements in your editorial. Please do some research and start over. Gene Gaines ggaines@generation.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this very large, double-size issue of the Digest, I have included *lots* of responses to the Microsoft commentary which appeared yesterday. In fact, this entire issue is devoted to responses. If someone's response is not included here, I'll try to include it in another issue in the next day or so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Hogard Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:46:14 CST TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jim Bellaire: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I took > the IE icon down from there and put a few others there which I > wanted to use instead. I tend to keep the most used stuff on the > desktop, and the tiny icons on the bottom of the screen for the > lesser-used stuff that I want from time to time. Why not just > edit yours to get rid of the IE thing if that is what you want? PAT] This is the root of the anti-Microsoft feeling. Those of us that make a living dealing with software are quite tired of wasting our time trying to undo Microsoft's features. Each new release they will remove things that we were counting on. Each new release will remove about as many features as it adds. The problem James had is that IE4 updated the DLL that draws the Internet control panel and the new one removed the "insecure" dial on demand click box. Now he can't have a simple command line program transfer files automagically as now the system requires a human to log in first. It has changed an automatic function to a manual one which I think is a step backwards. Keep in mind we should be using computers to do our work and they should not be creating more work for us to do. As for the millions of jobs Billy has created, keep in mind how productive those people would be if they didn't spend all day fighting stupid software. -tim http://web.abnormal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:03:30 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? In TELECOM Digest Pat Townson replied to me: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I'm not talking about anything on the taskbar panel. Dial up networking has a feature that will automatically connect you to the internet when that connection is needed by some piece of software. You will notice it (if active on your machine) when you start a program like Netscape or IE and ask it to connect to a web page. It is turned on (at home) through Control Panel - Internet on the tab that says 'AutoDial'. There is no on screen icon or anything to mess with. I can go straight to a command prompt, type 'ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu' and my machine will dial me in then make the FTP connection. At least at home it will. At work the machine that had IE installed has a completely different set of tabs on the Control Panel - Internet box. Most of them have to do with IE's settings and what to do with web-like objects. There is no AutoDial setting. Going to a command prompt and typing 'ftp' does nothing unless the user has wasted the time to connect to the net first. And connecting to the net cannot be automated through System Agent. (The win95 version of chron.) IE has disabled a function that I want on my computer, a function that works fine on a non-IE system. (Note that Win95 w/IE will still connect you to the net IF you are starting IE or some other large program, but not from command line programs such as ftp.) James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:43:00 EST Subject: Re : The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT, the issue with Win 95 and Internet Explorer *isn't* whether Microsoft does or doesn't write good software. It also makes no difference whether Microsoft would start giving away IE CD-Roms if forced to "decouple" IE from Win95. What the Justice Department is trying to do is prevent Microsoft from trampling all competition by using its sheer size to force others to play *its* game, or else no game at all. Once Microsoft drives Netscape and the other browser companies out of business, they could then charge a million dollars a copy for IE; there'd be no other alternative for the users. With total control, the concept of "open" anything goes right out the window; everything becomes proprietary, and subject to change on five minutes' notice, making it harder and harder (or impossible) for a new competitor to get even a toehold. Think back to the big oil trusts in the early part of this century. Once the competition was bought (or driven out of business), the trusts could charge literally anything they wanted; supply and demand become irrelevant when there is no alternative. Diamonds are a good present-day example ... the current pricing is related *only* to the artificial shortage that the diamond cartel strictly enforces; if diamonds were subject to true supply and demand, they'd cost a LOT less. Two months' salary, my butt. Imagine that Microsoft decided to purchase a very small peripheral manufacturer ... call 'em Modems-is-us. Fine. Now, all of a sudden, if you want to buy Win95, you gotta buy a modem from Modems-is-us. Then, after everyone has one, the standards start to change. Slowly at first, but before too long, only an M-I-U modem will do the latest compression thing; if M-I-U refuses to license its new (call it 4Q ;-) technology, presto, all of the other modem manufacturers are unemployed. That's called "tying", and it's been illegal as long as we've had antitrust laws. Surely, PAT, you aren't against antitrust laws generally ? Bill Levant [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, generally I *am* against the antitrust laws. I think we would all be much better off if we looked out for ourselves instead of asking the government to do it for us. And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things in this country today which were established -- and continue in operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the largesse of John Rockefeller. Much of my childhood was spent in a community largely controlled by Standard Oil -- Whiting, Indiana. I saw time and again the generosity of the Whiting Refinery Corp- oration and the Rockefeller family. The residents of Whiting pay no municipal taxes, you know. The refinery pays it all. Every year at high school graduation time the superintendant of the refinery would come around and hand out five thousand dollars to the class valadictorian. My grandfather worked for Whiting Refinery for about forty years, and it was on account of his inquiry to someone on the Board of Directors there that I got employed at the University of Chicago while I was in high school, working in the UC telecom department. The fellow on the board at Refinery was also a trustee at UC. I seem to recall in dim memory a time when I was about eight years old and a neighbor's house burning down. The next morning a very prim lady with a briefcase showed up at the place where the (burned out) family was staying and introduced herself as 'in charge of the refinery welfare fund.' She gave them a check from the refinery for a thousand dollars and then reached in her briefcase a second time and said, "oh, Mr. Rockefeller (not the original John obviously, but one of his descendants at that time who operated the refinery) was quite disturbed to hear about this, and felt a personal responsibility to help you rebuild ..." and handed them a letter of credit drawn on his personal account for ten thousand dollars. That would have been in 1940-50's money. "Just give this to whomever you choose to make the repairs; Whiting State Bank will handle the payments." JDR endowed the University of Chicago, Riverside Church in New York City, a few other schools, and a museum or two. His gifts put any number of deserving high school students completely through college. He, along with Clifford Barnes endowed the Chicago Sunday Evening Club. What else do you think he should have done? No ... I see no problem with the oil trusts at all. And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. He gave a million dollars last year to the Chicago Public Library to insure complete internet connectivity in all branches. And for those of you who came in late, he also gave me ten thousand dollars a couple years ago for the benefit of this Digest. The money was not to preach his gospel, nor was it intended as an inducement to shut my trap and keep it shut. There were no strings attached at all. I have no problems with his methodology at all in business matters. And God speed to anyone who wants to work on a new OS or other software to get away from using his. We will all benefit from the competition. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:17 EST From: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In article , Telecom Digest Editor writes: Even being so off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to PAT's troll. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser AOL and Compuserve are optional. Every (99%) PC you buy has MS Windows pre-installed on it. For most vendors, you don't get a choice not to have it installed, and are charged the same price. So, MS has a captive audience: it is not optional. > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. You cannot do this with your PC. This is the difference. > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. MS need not do anything to enhance sales of Win95. Every PC has it. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because the majority of the public cannot do this. MS has a captive audience and is _admittedly_ using its monopoly position in the OPERATING SYSTEM arena to take over the internet browser arena. > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. That's impressive. Most users are not as knowledgable. They just want a PC that's like a toaster. Plug it in, and click a few colorful icons. That is the market being fought over. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I fully expect that. That's only fair. People can then decide to get the 'free' one from MS or the free one from brand x. If Brand A's broswer is already on their PC, most users will just stick with it, as they don't have to go through the trouble of installing a new program. You already said the two programs are similar in function -- why would Joe User bother? > I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Well, we agree. When the free one is already on their PC, brand X doesn't have a chance -- especially when the entire OS is 'designed' around it. > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) I cannot believe you are serious throwing this out. If 'mighty' IBM and Apple can't compete, why do you think a one-product company can suddenly develop an OPERATING SYSTEM and ink distribution agreements with the PC vendors and software vendors. What makes you think that Brand A wouldn't give the OS away for free until Brand X buckles under? Your suggestion is ridiculous. However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an interface between applications and system resources -- applications are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) would love to be able to write application software that would run on any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to run the same application. The question on purchasing software will not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than Well, there is such thing as a level playing field. And industry standards, and uncompetitive practices. I agree though, that the marketplace will decide, but in the browser war, Brand A is trying to take away the choice for the consumer. Let's face it, until Brand X made this new softare there wasn't a market for it. Almost overnight the market changed from being PC-centric to being 'internet enabled'. Brand A has been playing catch-up and is trying to do anything to stop the competitors. Do some reading at the CNET site (listed later) and see some of the memos that the justice department obtained relating to why they felt compelled to step in. > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Oddly enough, most informed users feel the same way. It would be darn hard to find someone completely impartial. Most of them haven't received grants from Brand A to 'pay their heating bill', but instead look at the market and agree that the Justice Department investigation is legitimate. For example, here is a quote from MS's attorney: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18049,00.html He said that "removing the Internet Explorer retail product from the operating system would seriously degrade the operating system." If anyone believe that REMOVAL of a software application seriously degrades an OS ... > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. The solution is for MS's OS and software areas to be separate entities. Lucent is a good example of thriving, once the umbilical cord was cut. The editor has in the past tried to put down the breakup of the Bell monopoly, but the great majority of consumers have benefitted. Most of the readers of the Digest have benefitted. I expect we will see the same gains if other players are able to get into the software market. Regards, Frederick Farzanegan (not speaking for my employer, brand X or brand A) ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Organization: FreeFIleFarm Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:11:29 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Neither AOL or Compuserve force you to use ONLY their browsers. Nor do they force companies to use their browser exclusivly, under threat of losing the operating system. And both of these are the issue. Microsoft does both. They had nowhere near the scope of use Netscape did until such time as they started to employ these thugish tactics. Far be it from me to agree with much of anything the Clinton Justice Dept does, Pat, but I have to back someone when they are correct in their actions. And in this rare instance, Reno is right on the beam. ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:05:04 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Is it? Look at First Aid 98. See anything on the outside of the box about IE? As it installs, a message appears: Installing Internet Explorer. Whoa! Wait a minute, I have Nav 3 (don't like Communicator) don't want IE. Stop, I tell it. "Are you sure you don't want to install IE?" it asks. "Yes". Finish installation. *Try* to start FA98. IT WON'T RUN WITHOUT IE! (mentioned in passing deep within the instuction booklet). There is no reason to require that a browser of any sort be ensconced on my hard drive in order to run an internal system monitor program. This is here simply to FORCE IE onto my machine. There is where Microsoft has crossed the line. Give IE away? I have no problem with that, AS A DISTINCT PROGRAM. When it gets "integrated" with unrelated programs is where Bill has moved from smart marketing to economic coercision, expecially with respect to Windows, which is the de facto standard. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Fine. Do it. Just don't make the operation of OTHER programs contingent on it's presence. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Pat, you grew up in Chicago. You know as well as I do that this is the way it's *always* done. You aren't naive enough to think that Bill doesn't have his own set of "fixers" working the Justice Department, Commerce, the White House and every member of Congress, do you? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? I don't particulary care *who* does it. I'm getting paid off by neither side, and I still think that Microsoft has crossed the line and deserves to have it's collective ass kicked. Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.| bud@kentrox.com (work) | -Tom Lehrer | budc@hevanet.com (just me) | ... - me | |insert legalistic bs disclaimer here | ------------------------------ From: Bob Lombard Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: SPAWR Systems Center San Diego Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:53:49 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. However, and this is *the* key point ... neither AOL nor Compuserve, nor Prodigy *REQUIRE* that I accept their software to as a condition of using a computer or operating system, and further, none of them even requires that I use their software to use their service. They mail out bazillions of floppies and CD's as a pure marketing move. get an account, toss their software, use netscape, ie, even telnet. > ... Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with > the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Because its simply not a comparable situation. > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Precisely. So How can Microsoft claim that IE "is an integral part of Windows" (One of their main arguements) if there are dozens of other browsers that do the same things ? > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Good for you. So do I. So do many *techies*. So what. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. The free stuff is marketing strategy. Give a lesser version free, sell the bells and whistles. All of the vendors do it. The issue is forcing a product with leverage not available to your competitor, then claiming its legit because "windows isn't windows' with out it. > What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new > operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe > *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their > browser stuff as part of the deal? The incredibly large investment it would take? Restrictive licensing deals MS already has in place with PC manufacturers (Ie if you want to sell our Office products, one of our operating systems must be licensed for each PC you sell which automatically inflates the price of any competing operating system Did you ever see OS2 included for free on a PC. No, and it was because that manufacturer had to buy DOS/WIN anyway, so that's he sold.) > Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to > stop doing it? In a heartbeat. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers... Yes, exactly right. And that can't happen if the inclusion of IE is a requirement of licensing MS operating systems. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. While I have great respect for this Digest and your efforts here, insulting the Justice Department because you don't agree with them is beneath you. Get some air, ok ? /r Bob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Listen, with or without the Microsoft matter, the United States Department of Justice is *so corrupt* that I could start an entirely new Digest just dealing with the topic. One small example: which software company was it that specializes in software for attornies which found *hundreds of pirated copies* of its main product on computers at Justice? It proceeded to sue the government to force Justice to pay for all the copies it had illegally copied and it is still waiting to get paid. The name Westlaw rings a bell ... don't quote me on the name. Another small example: About three dozen members of a vicious street gang in Chicago were put on trial in federal court here, and were all found guilty and given long prison terms. Then, quite after the fact, comes word that one of the federal prosecutors had used perjured testimony obtained from an inmate at the Metropolitan Correctional Center *which he knew was false* and which was conjured up in an all-night booze, sex and drugs party at the federal building here with the inmate in particular as the star of the show. In addition, the prosecutor had smuggled some drugs into the prison as a favor to the inmate who wove the little story together. None of this of course was known to the court or the defense attornies prior to the trial, and as you might expect, the government was reversed on appeal in *every single conviction* in that case. In the well-publicized 'Operation Greylord' matter here in which about thirty of the judges in Cook County were sent to prison, the {Chicago Tribune}, while applauding the job done noted that Justice would do well to clean its own house sometime soon. Oh, there are some very rotten people in that agency, let me tell you. I do not need Gates as an example. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 21:59:07 -0000 From: David Wuertele Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. You could look at this process as Netscape "going in a back room," crying to momma, but you could also look at it as a whole lot of pissed-off people using any weapon they can to protect their industry from a marketing machine so successful that technical superiority is actually a disadvantage. You quote Ayn Rand, but do you think one of Ayn Rand's heroes would have built Windows? What was that architect's name, Rourke? If he would build anything, it would be UNIX. And he would take a stick of dynamite to anything that MS built, damn the legality. UNIX is actually in great danger from MS. I am an engineer and I have seen the effect that Microsoft has on a mature industry, namely EDA tools. All the tools for designing chips were developed on UNIX, and engineers built an incredible infrastructure in UNIX to use these tools. The engineers have invested many many years of their carreers and lives to learn effective design on UNIX. So you would expect the EDA tool makers to want to continue developing on UNIX? Unfortunately, management doesn't understand UNIX, and they hold the purse strings. So when EDA toolmakers propose ditching UNIX in favor of NT, engineers cringe and managers drool. Engineers are apparently not good enough communicators to show their managers why such a move would actually cost more than keeping the UNIX option open. And now, there is very little development being done for UNIX. Microsoft has bullied a previously strong industry into fearing the demise of UNIX and the rise of NT as a standard. It's sad and frustrating, and I for one support any attempts to hinder the marketing machine's progress. David Wuertele [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal preference is for Unix; and I am going to see if I can put it, or something close to it like Linux on my laptop in a partioned area. I may not be successful; I won't know until I try. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 17:25:42 -0500 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] Telecom Digest Editor writes: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Because first of all, these companies are not monopolies. Second of all, what these companies provide is relevant to browsers: you have a choice of which online service to use, and, for your convenience, they include a free browser guaranteed to work well with their system. Most of all, no company is compelled against its will to supply these wares to their customers: anyone who bundles AOL or CompuServe does so because they have negotiated a deal with AOL or CompuServe and consent freely to what is being done. What stinks to high heaven about the Microsoft action is that they are compelling -- threatening even -- vendors to include MS software with all their PCs. They are using their virtual monopoly on operating system software to strong-arm vendors into biasing their systems against MS's competition. It would be as if AT&T resorted to extortion to compel the RBOCs to make AT&T the default long distance carrier for all new customers, prejudicing them against their competitors. > I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet > Explorer. I don't see that, strictly speaking, as the issue. The issue is that vendors have no choice: they are obliged to include the IE software, even if they do not want to, and some vendors have been threatened by MS for not following their demands. MS issues an ultimatum: Include the software, or we cancel your license. > I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them > as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common > anyway, including Real Player. But your average user is going to get his computer with IE installed, and he's going to be too lazy or uninformed to make an alternate browser choice. MS wins by default. That's their tactic: gain marketshare by leveraging their monopoly to ensure that the first browser every PC user sees is IE, and taking advantage of human laziness to deprive the competition of a market. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Doesn't matter; that issue is irrelevant, because if that was the situation, it would be a lot different: then every competitor would be on a level playing field, and MS would not have a default victory on every system. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. How do you propose we let the marketplace "do its own thing" when MS compels all PC vendors to serve up IE on a silver platter preinstalled, regardless of whether the user has requested it? And do you not suppose that having done this, MS will claim a number of IE users equivalent to the number of Windows 95 systems shipped with IE installed, so they can promote IE as gaining market share and eclipsing Netscape, regardless of whether people actually use IE, care about IE, or even deinstall IE? If the DOJ lets this go on, the only thing that the market will do is MS's thing. Where do you want the market to go today? Where does MS want the market to go today? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Whence this gratuitous swipe? If you have an objective and justified complaint to make about this man, present it. I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric. I am quite surprised, and not a little perplexed, at the fervor with which you make your contentions. Perhaps you might more clearly articulate the principles by which you make your argument: Exactly what common good or virtuous end is being compromised by the DoJ action? Do you see this as a matter of prejudice against laissez-faire economics? Do you affirm certain intrinsic virtues or benevolences of monopolies that are endangered here? I cannot help but suspect (please correct me if I have drawn the wrong inferences) that you are basing your conclusions by way of analogy with the negative effects of telecom deregulation (which you have expressed on several occasions). I would suggest that the metric by which we judge this action is the metric of what is most beneficial to the industry, in general, and to customers, in particular. My reply, to express it briefly, is that the actions of Microsoft are inimicable to innovation and threaten to stifle creativity, by rendering utterly barren and infertile the the competitive ground so necessary for innovation to grow and bear fruit. Call it the kudzu threat, I guess. I suppose your rejoinder might be to offer as a counterexample the bitter weeds of the telecom world, the toxic IXCs and seedy CLECS that have marred the telecom economy. If I may anticipate, such a line of reasoning may, arguably, not be apropos to what is in fact an entirely different industry and an entirely different question. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:15:44 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt The error in your logic, Pat, is that neither AOL or CompuServe developed the browser that ships with their product. AOL ships Microsoft Internet Explorer (a customized version), and CompuServe has shipped both browsers, depending on whether you're dealing with them directly or their Sprynet division. Usually, ISPs which ship Microsoft Internet Explorer are permitted by Microsoft to do so for free provided that they optimize their web page for MSIE and display a "This page best viewed with MSIE" banner. Those ISPs which use Netscape Navigator pay Netscape for each copy of Navigator used by one of their customers. The real problem with Microsoft giving away their product for free in order to put out competition is fundamental. I'm not sure why the Justice Department doesn't go after Microsoft for that, rather than the fact that they ship MSIE with Windows 95 OSR2. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:33:16 GMT Organization: Netcom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? AOL and Compuserve are not monopolies, Microsoft is and must be held to higher standards. The issue is not about the browser. The issue is whether Microsoft is "acting" like a monopoly by "bundling" the browser in the OS, thus requiring consumers to accept a product as a condition of sale of Windows in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. The law and court decisions are quite clear here. You can be a monopoly by merit of your product and service, its just that you cannot act like one. Intel is a similar monopoly, however they take great pains NOT to act like one and have been cleared by the Justice department and the FTC several times. The precedent in this case that should be well known to readers of the Digest is the Carterphone decision which held that phone companies [the monopoly] cannot require consumers to purchase specific equipment or services [ phones ] on their network. The enforcement of Sherman here opened the market for 3rd parties to produce telephone equipment and services that enhanced competition and lowered costs for consumers. IBM was sued over this very issue, and though Justice ultimately dismissed the larger case, IBM unbundeled its pricing schemes for mainframes to conform, creating the "plug compatiable" markets and ultimately growing the market for IBM mainframes in general. It is still under consent decrees in many areas of its marketing. For an intelligent discussion of the theory of anti-trust as it applies to this case I would suggest a article in the latest issue of {The New Yorker} Jan 12, 1998 by John Cassidy > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because capitalist markets do not always work as they should, which is why we have anti-trust laws, meat inspection,the SEC, FTC, FDA, EPA and FAA. Democratic Capitalism requires sensible regulation of markets to allow them to function efficiently. IMHO Justice is being quite conservative here in its demands. You can properly argue what is and what is not "sensible regulation" but regulation is essential. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? They could and probably should. This would probably pass muster under Sherman. Microsoft is being particularly stupid in its behavior in this case. Its just not very smart to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Federal courts. They are getting really bad advice. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Oh and Steve Balmer and his merry little band of cutthroats dont sit in back rooms and scheme on which markets they are going take over next?? I respectfully suggest that we let the Justice Department do its job. Contary to popular opinion, the goverment can, once and a while, act in the public interest. Richard Shockey 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu (Al McLennan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 09:25:55 -0500 PAT: I always enjoy and respect your commentary, but can't let this one go by without a rejoinder. First of all, the complaint is not that the browser is included for free, it is that Microsoft wants to require that the OEM include the browser as part of the package. This is possible only because of the non-competitive environment. With competition, Microsoft would be unable to dictate terms to its largest customers, but would instead adjust to their wishes. Microsoft actually has a very poor record for innovation. Such big killer apps as the spreadsheet, word processor, data base, GUI, HTML, browsers, were all invented elsewhere. One is hard put to think of a major innovation due to Microsoft. It is also the case that Microsoft's product is sometimes rather shoddy. One notorious example is the 640K memory limit, which could have been eliminated when the 80286 (or was it the 80386?) appeared, but stayed through MS-DOS and Windows until Windows95. Has everyone forgotten the days of the boot disk, needed for some large programs even though the machine had ample memory and a memory manager? Other OS's had 32 bit memory access years before Microsoft's. The other, superior, OS's lost out because of Microsoft's clout and anti-competitive practices. {The New York Times} had an article a few days ago on the user-unfriendly nature of the PC, which is unquestionably a barrier to a wider market. One must be somewhat a techie to deal with this forbidding product, and the OS is a big part of the problem. Windows95 is more stable than Windows 3.1, but less so than DOS and far more inscrutable. Every DOS and far more inscrutable. Every few months I must reinstall the OS to solve some mysterious problem, but re-installation of application programs is rarely necessary. The online help is frequently useless. This is not a satisfactory OS, and the prospect for improvement is not helped by the absence of competition. Al McLennan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:42:22 GMT In article , ptownson@telecom-digest.org says... > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. No, that's not the complaint. Since you're arguing against something that Microsoft isn't charged with, you can make a strong argument, but it's only knocking over a straw horse. Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a condition of selling IE. This sounds *exactly* like "tying", except that MS simply defined IE as part of Windows, and therefore it's not "tying". They also said they could include a ham sandwich (their example) in Windows if they so desired, and it wouldn't be tying. The Justice Dept., who enforces antitrust, says that that isn't kosher. Licensing is a funny thing. As a non-lawyer, I'd assume that if I buy a license for software, I get the right to use it, and if I want to use *part* of a product, I may have to pay for the whole thing, but I can use whatever part I want. MS feels otherwise. They don't allow Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call it tying. It is unreasonable for a PC vendor to try to go to market without access to Win95; while some of us don't use it, the non-Windows market is tiny and users often include it anyway, just for those cases when no alternative is workable. Therefore MS has extreme market control. This is not the case with AOL or CIS -- you can sell a PC without either, use the Internet from a PC without either, etc. Neither has market control. Had MS merely given IE away for free, at the taker's or OEM's option, this probably wouldn't have occurred. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:15:27 CST From: "Christopher Wolf"@micro.ti.com (Christopher Wolf) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From > each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I > thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the > case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating > a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of > millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million He's not, though. They may have had a joke at his expense in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but it's more true than joke. The software is bad. The software loses data (see the "big red X" fix for graphics). The software gets included for free or for very little extra with the OS. Why? So you'll use the free product instead of buying a competitor. But why should it? > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, Because they are in the same group as Netscape, not with Microsoft. They too will be out the door when the day of the fully integrated desktop comes. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone And do you think it will still be free when they force Netscape out of the market? When they're the only one left, will you be happy with your only choice? If they want to give it away free, fine, but allow others to enter the same niche. Don't give it away only because it has a competitor you wish to squash. > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out of business quickly, and then start charging for it. Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other interfaces. Well, considering your previous espousings on the Unabomber, I doubt you'll spend much time on this letter, but what the heck. -W [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regarding Ted K., have they finished searching his little hut yet, or are they still looking for more typewriters and bomb-making materials? I wonder if he will be allowed his constitutional right to represent himself (no matter how foolish that course of action may be) or if they will insist on keeping the government-paid attornies on the case to insure that the 'proper' things are said and done? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400 From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. Browsers might be a dime a dozen to people like you and me, but to the 'average' computer purchaser they take what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's what they use. I don't have many answers, and I don't know all the questions, but I do know this -- after spending ten years supporting end-users (mainfraime, PC, Mac, etc) I've discovered that the 'average' person has the computer literacy of a lamp post. OK, so the world is filled with 25+ and younger people who are computer literate, have grown up with computers all their lives, and can make their own decisions. But the majority of computer buyers are people who have fallen for the hype that if they don't own a computer they are missing out on something in life. They go to CompUSA, they buy a computer with Win95 (and hence IE?), Microsoft Office and AOL, and they never figure out how to do anything but turn it on, click a few buttons, and complain when their tech support period has ended. I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In TELECOM Digest V18 #7, Pat wrote about Netscape: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. In any case, AOL/Compuserve sell the web as a small part of their 'information services'. Their integrated user interface includes a web browser, and so do many 'packages' that ISPs sell when they hook you to the net, but the consumer is paying for internet access. To not provide a browser would be illogical. Microsoft is providing a popular operating system. It is the pre-installing of the optional web browser that is getting them in trouble. Users like me who have had problems with IE don't want it pre-installed on our machines, taking up space and affecting the operation of other programs. But under Microsoft's rules every new machine would be 'infected' by their browser. Supplying the browser on a separate CD would be appropriate. Making it a stand alone product instead of integrating it into the 'Internet' portion of the operating system would help. But the current requirement to have IE pre-installed by the manufacturer or lose Win95 is inappropriate. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:47-48 I'm not sure the Justice Department will like the source. James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of your customer base demands installed". > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Except that IE4 is VERY ugly in its uninstall procedures. Try it some time, and if you're not completely hosed, call Microsoft and rejoice, for you are among the few. IE4 (and up) seem to be designed strictly from the "yeah, you can uninstall me, but god have mercy on your soul if you do" perspective. Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? That's fine. That's a very acceptable answer. As long as when it gets to the end user, it is NOT installed as a mandatory part of the OS load. Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. I would instead resort to manually removing it, by going into DOS and the proper directories, then one by one removing the files which were used just by IE, while leaving alone the files which although used by IE were common to other aspects of Windows 95. And I would be rather conservative at that, preferring to err in favor of leaving a file around that I was unsure of rather than removing it if I was not sure. I could live with a little unidentified/unused trash on the hard drive if I was not certain of its purpose. And obviously before I began any removal action, I would have a complete backup of the whole thing. But I really cannot see myself removing it; there are some things I've found that IE is better at while in other situations, Netscape is superior. By now as you might have guessed, I have gone through the telecom web pages with a fine tooth comb, looking at them both via IE and Netscape in great detail. I've made a few minor adjustments to improve the appearance of my web pages. I'm lucky to have both installed, as well as Lynx. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 03:16:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no choice. Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with its operating system. Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:16:37 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > I think trying to put your competition out of business by giving your > product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe that > once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market MSIE will > still be free?" You're assuming that Microsoft *intends* to put Netscape out of business. Microsoft's position seems to be that their giving IE away will drive the market for other Microsoft products using Web protocols -- not just on the Internet, but (perhaps more importantly) on corporate intranets as well. What I fear here is that, if Microsoft's detractors are successful in forcing them to remove IE from Windows (which goes beyond the present case), the precedent will be set to also force them to remove all sorts of other capabilities that are included with Windows that formerly were sold separately -- networking features, fax software, a backup program, a defragmenter, a disk error testing program, a file finder, and on and on. We could end up with a situation where OS makers can only sell bare-bones products, in order to "preserve" the market for add-ons, or -- perhaps even worse -- a situation where just one company is prevented from enhancing its product, which would remove a lot of incentive for other OS vendors like IBM to try to beat the basic Microsoft OS (since they could just throw in a bundle of goodies). ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:40:00 EST Purely for entertainment, I've been experimenting with the use of various .wav files to open and close not only Windows 95, but also various programs therein. I picked up an interesting CD-ROM the other day of sound effects for this purpose, and these include segments ranging from just one or two seconds in length to much longer (thirty to forty second) items. You can install this in a directory which Windows will look for and you can either have them play once or repeat as desired. You can add various affects like reverberation and echoes. If you wish, add your own .wav files of speech or singing or whatever. Some of the items I tested were: For opening Windows 95, a crazy witch who cackles insanely and shouts 'come on in!' When a browser closes, a nice lady with a very British accent who questions me, 'Going so soon?' I have a clock synch program which goes to tick.usno.navy.mil 37 and I stuck a sound effect in there when it returns with the correct time to set my system clock the same lady mentioned above says, 'at the signal tone, the time will be ...' and the crazy witch cackles about it. When a file cannot located by Windows or some other error condition occurs, a man's voice angrily says 'not so fast! NOT SO FAST!' When Windows is closing, a man's voice says, "Don't be gone long dear, I'll miss you until you get back." Other .wav files included with it are: bird calls, animal noises, an approaching train with a whistle blowing, a storm with thunder and rain, an audience in a theatre applauding noisily and the same audience laughing very hysterically. I suppose you could send this latter one over the wire to someone else's Real Player for a joke. Also, a 35 second very grandiose one stanza version of 'America the Beautiful' sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; a file of about the same length of the opening passage of 'Toccata and Fugue in D Minor' of J.S. Bach, and a couple others. Oh, and I got my very first obscene 'Net Meeting' call the other night. Does *anyone* use 'Net Meeting' for anything but hot chat type calls? I had logged in, I guess it was to ils3.microsoft.com and was just looking at the directory of users when I got a signal that a call was coming in. I accepted the call; the little side- window opened, and a man's -- ummm -- 'thing' was on display. And in the written chat box next to it he had typed, 'are you m or f? how old? how do you like what you see?' I should have reported him to the management ... and ... had I been thinking quickly I would have played back one of the sound effects to him; probably the one of the audience laughing hysterically or perhaps the one of the crazy witch cackling before disconnecting him. Bye for now! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #9 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 15 03:47:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA14059; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:47:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:47:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801150847.DAA14059@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #10 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 98 03:47:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New MCI FCC Charge (Jack Decker) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (David G. Lewis) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (T. McLough) Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Adam H. Kerman) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (acarr@aol.com) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Edward Kern) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Joe Vallender) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bruce Wilson) Re: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Fred R. Goldstein) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: New MCI FCC Charge I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI today. This line gets very little long distance usage, and none at all some months. Every since the inception of "equal access" I've always had my primary residence line set up as "no PIC" (no default long distance carrier) - at first, when I lived at my previous residence, it was a protest against being sent a "Russian ballot" (I used that terminology back then, which of course was prior to the fall of the Soviet empire!) that contained only ONE carrier choice. Later on, I figured out that having "no PIC" was a good primary line of defense against people making toll calls on my phone without my knowledge, and it never bothered me to have to dial the extra digits on the very few toll calls made from that line. When MCI long distance service eventually became available at my previous residence I got a "10XXX" account with them, which basically made me an MCI customer in the same way as someone who had MCI as their "Dial 1" carrier, the only difference being that my phone line was not actually presubscribed to MCI. Then, when I moved to GTE territory a few years ago, I had my new residence line set up in the same way, and had my MCI "10XXX" account transferred to the new number. Well, today when I got my MCI bill, there were three short calls on it (one of which was really a misdial, where I actually wound up being charged for a call within my local calling area!). The call total was 72 cents, and there was another six cents in federal and state taxes . So far, so good. But then there was also a "National Access Fee" surcharge of $1.07 on the bill. That brought the total bill up to $1.85, for what started out as 72 cents worth of calls. A notation on the bill offers this explanation: "The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to each usage customer." Well, the first thing I did was to fire off an e-mail of complaint to my representative in the U.S. Congress. I for one, am fed up the federal government treating phone service as though it's some kind of luxury, and phone users as sheep waiting to be fleeced every time the FCC has some pet project they want to fund. I figured that maybe if a few of the "sheep" start kicking and screaming a little, Congress just might take notice, especially given that this is an election year. Keep in mind that we already get hit with a federally-mandated "intrastate access charge" on local telephone company bills, so how much more are we expected to bleed on the whim of the F.C.C.? But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this fee? After all, wasn't the whole idea of the "10(10)XXX" codes that you could, if you so desire, place each toll call you make with a different carrier so as to get the best rate? It kind of defeats the purpose if every time you use a different carrier, they soak you with their own version of this "National Access Fee." So I called MCI, and guess what -- it's even worse than I thought. I spoke to TWO different representatives, and both confirmed that I would be billed this monthly fee every month *even if I did not make any long distance calls.* I asked how they could do that, since my line isn't presubscribed to MCI. Apparently, in their view that doesn't matter -- as long as I have an account with MCI, they intend to bill me the $1.07 each month, even though my line is not presubscribed to them and even though I may never make a call using MCI again. They view a "10XXX" account as no different from a regular account in this regard. Now granted, it's not going to be a big loss to MCI, but chances are that in a couple days I'm going to call back and cancel my MCI account completely. It's bad enough to be assessed an access fee in the months when you only make a few short toll calls, but worse yet to have this monthly charge build up in months when you don't use the service at all. I'm trying to figure out now if there is any way that I can place intraLATA calls using GTE (so far, no one in or out of GTE has been able to provide me with a 10(10)XXX code that lets me use real GTE service for intraLATA toll calls -- I asked about that here a few months ago, but though many suggestions were made, none of them actually worked in this area). If I find a way to do it (I'm waiting for a call back from someone at the local GTE office), I'll just cancel my MCI account entirely and use the access code to place whatever few calls we make from that line through GTE. From what I have been reading here, however, I gather that some carriers are NOT directly passing along this monthly fee to their customers. I'd be interested to know if there are any that a) accept casual calls and bill through the local phone company, b) do NOT charge a monthly charge of any kind beyond the actual price of the calls, and c) have reasonable per-minute rates on calls within Michigan. Obviously, for the calling volume on this line a difference of a couple cents per minute is not as important as not getting stuck with that infernal monthly fee. Every now and again we get ads in the mail from some long distance company that uses "10XXX" access, but lately almost every one of them has included fine print that indicates that there will be some kind of fixed charge of a few dollars tacked onto your bill if you use their service even once in a month. I will close this by saying that if anyone else is upset about this new charge, you ought to consider writing your member of congress. Since this is an election year, they may not be as likely to just blow you off, and as long as you are writing you might consider also mentioning the subscriber line charge that appears on you local phone bill, both to indicate that you realize that we are already getting dinged by the feds for that charge, and (if you so desire) to express your displeasure with that charge as well. It would probably be a good thing for our lawmakers to realize that we can't be fooled just because the various charges are spread out all over the bill(s). I realize that some who object to this latest charge may choose to simply change carriers, but even if you do, it wouldn't hurt to let your representatives know if you feel that telephone users are not a bottomless money pit to be mined whenever they feel the urge to start up some new federal project. (If your representative has a Web page, it is probably linked from the page at http://www.house.gov:80/MemberWWW.html and if you go to your rep's page, you should be able to find their e-mail address, assuming that they are not still living in the stone age). To reply via e-mail, please make the obvious modification to my return e-mail address. Jack ------------------------------ From: David.G.Lewis@att.com Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:17:52 -0500 Organization: AT&T - NCS Reply-To: dglewis@ems.att.com Richard Barnaby wrote: > Just wondering ... > The Teleport/ATT merger is being heralded as a "great thing" by (it > seems) everyone. Teleport has built its business (so it seems to me) > by being IXC neutral. Since Teleport (AFAIK) was not competing in the > LD area (to any great extent if at all), any IXC would feel > comfortable placing their business with them rather than the ILEC in > that city, all other things being equal. > Now how will the *other* IXC's feel with ATT knowing all their > business connections. If I were an IXC I'd be just a tad nervous. > Does this portend well for other CLEC's to have business migrated to > them? Does it *even* matter anymore :-) That is, of course, a matter of opinion; note that (a) TCG does have a long distance product offer, called PrimeDistance (SM) service; and (b) TCG has an agreement to purchase ACC Corp., which has an agreement to purchase US WATS Inc., another LD provider. Thus, it's not precisely true that TCG isn't in the LD business. Furthermore, as the industry boundaries continue to dissolve, there will be more and more cases of companies being both competitors and customers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last > week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local > business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they > buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different > angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] Actually, it wasn't last week, it was last November, and the announcement was that AT&T was suspending marketing of local service, not that AT&T was getting out of the local business (USA Today even printed a correction ...). David G. Lewis AT&T Network and Computing Services Network Planning The future - it's a long distance from long distance. ------------------------------ From: root@newsb.cb.att.com (T. McLough) Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:52:58 -0500 Reply-To: tmclough@erols.com Pat's comment: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last > week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local > business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they > buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different > angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] The really interesting thing is how even telecom-savvy people like Pat completely misinterpreted AT&T's statment. The reporting media are at fault for being too generic in their reporting. If you read the AT&T press releases, it was perfectly clear. AT&T was discontinuing the strategy of reselling the local connection from the LECs. They found that they could not profit given the prices and errors that the LECs were charging and generating. AT&T said it would find other ways to reach the local customer. The Teleport aquisition is perfectly consistent with that strategy. Side note: If the LEC cost to connect to a local customer really is as high as wholesale rates they are offering to the IXCs, then the LECs are in trouble. If not, then they really are dragging their feet on opening up competition. trm ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:57:09 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing > Education campaign will begin Monday. > The telecommunications industry and the commission have worked for > months to prepare a $1 million public education campaign beginning > Monday that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing > 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. Does this mean that the "1" dialling prefix never needs to be used to dial an interLATA call? Or, is it required to dial an intraLATA intraNPA call? How did they arrange things so that there's no transition from mandatory eleven-digit dialling on some calls to optional eleven-digit dialling? I thought that couldn't be done. At least, that's what they claim in Chicago. > But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring > alternatives since an estimated three million of the eight million > numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of > them have been assigned to companies. > 1. Requiring wireless users to switch to 720 and giving the new area > code only to future wireless users. This option is silly. Then, there will be no incentive to find a way to share NPA-NXX combinations among wireless and wireline resellers. > 2. Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers > stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to > specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing > long-distance calls. > Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each > new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each of > 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. This is ridiculous. "Rate center" is an artificial concept, particularly for wireless carriers. You can't make an outgoing call on a pager, last time I looked. And, with respect to a cell phone, it won't affect long-distance rating if there's only one rate center in Denver, and every third or fourth rate center is used in the suburbs. No one at all would be affected if two thirds of the rate centers were eliminated for a wireless carrier attempting to cover all of 303, and the currently-held NPA-NXX combinations were reassigned to remaining rate centers. > As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. That > would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. How is this possible? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:37:47 -0500 From: acarr@aol.com (ACARR) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Bill, Here are the rates for ISDN BRI in PA for Bell Atlantic: Residential: B Hours) Monthly Rate Best Package For You 20 Hours $31.00 33.1 hrs or less 60 Hours $41.25 33.1 hrs - 78.3 hrs 140 Hours $55.50 78.3 hrs - 176.5 hrs 300 Hours $84.00 176.5 hrs - 331.4 hrs 500 Hours $108.50 331.4 hrs - 680.1 hrs Unlimited $249.00 NA For residential, usage is charged for local data AND voice calls (ie no DOVBS). local usage in excess of the allowance are charged at $0.02 per min per B channel peak and $0.01 off-peak. more info at B Hours) Business: $31-$39 per month plus depending on where you live. $0.02 per minute per B channel for local circuit switched data normal business voice rates for circuit switched voice (or DOVBS). Usage packages for business are coming out soon. BA only charges for the monthly fee and local usage. Toll calls are rated at the normal voice rate. Long distance are billed by the LD carrier. Usage allowances count only towards local usage. Initial installation and setup is sometimes challenging, but most people love it once its set up. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:07:36 -0500 From: Edward Kern Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Bill Levant writes: > BA's web pages are generally uninformative. Is there anyone out there > who actually *has* ISDN from BA-Pennsylvania, and can tell me : > 1) What does it REALLY cost per month (exclusive of usage) > 2) What usage is charged for, and how (is LD charged as usage PLUS toll, > are incoming calls charged; does BA allow flat-rate voice-over-bearer?) > 3) Are you happy with it? I'm making the assumption that you're looking at residential ISDN, and not business rates. The rates they post for different usage packages are all-inclusive, except for the $3.50/mo federal tax. The well-hidden web site http://www.bell-atl.com/isdn/consumer/getcon.htm (get conned? Hrmm.. :> ) has all the rates for residential ISDN. According to BA, you get charged for all outgoing calls, voice or data. Incoming calls are not metered. However, my bill (which is 30+ pages - they itemize all ISDN calls) shows that I wasn't charged at all for outbound calls, both local and long distance (I did get charged from my long distance carrier, like normal, for the long distance voice calls I placed). My guess is that they're billing me incorrectly. ISDN has really been great. It's really fast, and connections are more stable than modem calls. However, I've had problems with inbound calls being transferred to a BA operator if my line is busy. I've run through tech support with 3com/USRobotics (my TA manufacturer), BA InfoSpeed (residential ISDN folks), and a switch tech named John, and everyone says everything is ok. I'm not sure if I'm just going to get more analog lines for incoming and just live with BA's problem, or if I'm going to start pestering the PUC at this point. One final thing: BA will send you TONS of literature and signup kits for their own ISP, BellAtlantic.net. I'd recommend against using them -- their backbone provider, IConNet, has the worst quality service I've ever seen. Edward Kern (dag@soulfood.org) The Soulfood Group ------------------------------ From: Joe Vallender Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:16:42 -0800 Reply-To: javallender@sprintmail.com Bill Levant wrote: > Well, we finally broke down and bought one of those new-fangled > Pentium computer thingies :-), but it is apparent that POTS dialup is > going to be almost intolerably slow (when we were using the poor old > 386, who noticed?). > I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but I've come to trust those > who post here; E-Mail is welcomed, so we don't drive POP (poor old > PAT) crazy with off-topic posts ... You might want to post this query on the COMP.DCOM.ISDN newsgroup. That's where a lot of the ISDN users hang out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:35:29 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In article , Telecom Digest Editor writes: > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems > more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt > for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. What was it, Pat? Was this a Microsoft press release? Are you worried about the value of your Microsoft stock? The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a computer. Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Microsoft does not send me press releases. Hardly any company does except those who want me to sell something for them -- for free usually -- and then they send the press release in the form of snail-mail to my post office box; anywhere from three to ten or more pages which they expect me to type in I guess. I do not own any stock in Microsoft, or any other company for that matter. And how are things with you these days Bruce? Did you get that woman with the deadbeat son straightened out? Has she gotten any more phone bills with unusual charges since we last chatted here? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:50:30 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join > the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone.... > The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of > digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to > turn off his aids. .... > AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital > phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, > Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital > equipment. AT&T Wireless has a big problem of their own making, and there's no quick fix. The trouble is that there are two basic types of digital cell phone air interface, CDMA and TDMA. AT&T uses D-AMPS TDMA. In this system, the cell phone turns its transmitter on and off rapidly, allowing different users' transmitters to share a channel by transmitting at different time intervals. The resulting signal is a pulsed wave, which is essentially an AM transmitter 100% modulated with a square wave, which is rectified by nearby electronics. A super-shielded hearing aid *might* be able to resist it, but I doubt it would fit into an ear! (GSM is a different form of TDMA, with the same problems.) CDMA, used by many other carriers now, leaves the transmitters running all the time during a call. Each uses spread-spectrum to spread the signals over a wide band, while the receivers use correlation functions to pick out the desired signals from the many others on the same frequency at the same time. It sounds tricky and there's some heavy math behind it, but thanks to fast DSP silicon it works and requires very little power. (A Sony/Qualcomm CDMA cell phone gets 60 hours standby and 4 hours talk time per charge.) While there is an AM component too (power adjustment of 1 dB 800 times per second), it's a small fraction of TDMA's. I don't know if hearing aids have any problem with any CDMA phones, but I'm sure it'll be much less severe. 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #10 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 16 18:39:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA24129; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801162339.SAA24129@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #11 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jan 98 18:39:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Urgent FCC Information (Andrea Fortus) Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis (Rob Slade) Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (John McHarry) AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (David Schuetz) Re: Y2k Compliant Software Release (Tony Toews) Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation (Steven R. Shepherd) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Daniel Rothman) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Linc Madison) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: afortus@salestar.com (Andrea Fortus) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:51:00 -0800 Subject: Urgent FCC Information This letter is to inform you that the recent FCC decision to detariff all long distance services also eliminated the requirement for long distance carriers to provide pricing and service information to the public. If not modified, this decision will deprive U.S. consumers, particularly small-to-medium sized businesses and residential customers, access to critical information necessary to make their telecommunications carrier and service selections. The decision will make it difficult for consumers to obtain thorough and timely pricing information. Salestar is a San Francisco based telecommunications research company. Together with the Center for Communications Management Information and Tele-Tech Services, we have formed the Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition (the "Coalition"). The Coalition's purpose is to advocate consumers' right to view pricing and service information. The Coalition and the Utility Reform Network ("TURN"), a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of California's residential and small business customers of telecommunications, electric and gas services, filed a petition for further reconsideration of the FCC's decision on December 4, 1997, the deadline for filing such petitions at the FCC. The Coalition's petition may be found at Salestar's webpage at www.salestar.com. A summary of the public disclosure issue as well as a model letter of support for the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration of the elimination of the public disclosure requirement may also be found at Salestar's web page. In addition, we are mounting an aggressive campaign to rally supporters. We would like to take this opportunity to urge you to add your support to our efforts by sending a letter to the FCC stating your opposition to the elimination of the public disclosure requirement and supporting our petition for further reconsideration. For your convenience, a model letter of support may be found at www.salestar.com. Please feel free to use it as a guide in writing your own letter or forward it to other groups who my be interested in this issue. We would like all letters in support of the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration to be submitted to the FCC no later than January 20, 1998. With a strong collective effort, we feel that the FCC will take notice of our concerns and reinstate the public disclosure requirement. Thank you for your support! Andrea Fortus Salestar Telecom Analyst afortus@salestar.com 415-356-2166 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:32:15 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCM2GRF.RVW 971003 "Come to Grief", Dick Francis, 1995, 0-515-11952-0, U$6.99 %A Dick Francis %C 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 %D 1995 %G 0-515-11952-0 %I Ace/Berkley/Boulevard/Charter/Diamond/Jove Books %O U$6.99 +1-800-788-6262 http://www.berkley.com/berkley %P 368 %T "Come to Grief" OK, I've already admitted that I like Dick Francis, OK? But I *do* have a reason for reviewing this one as well as "Driving Force" (cf. BKDRVFRC.RVW). Yes, a *technical* reason. Two or three, actually. First, this book involves the use of cell phones, and the interception of cell phone conversations. As in "Driving Force", Francis' technical details are a mixture of good and bad. It is good to see that he is making the public more aware of the vulnerability in using cellular phones to conduct confidential or private business. (Or, as Prince Charles found out to his chagrin, pleasure.) However, in this story, the lead character is told that getting a digital cell phone, as opposed to analogue, is an automatic guarantee of security. Granted, a digital scanner is a lot harder to build than an analogue one but without the use of spread spectrum or encryption, or both, digital communications alone cannot ensure security. Second, the main character admits that he is not keen on computers, and uses them as little as is consistent with his business. Fair enough. We can, though, therefore rule out the possibility that his home computer is even moderately sophisticated, let alone running a multiuser operating system. In fact, we can probably assume that, like most people, he turns the computer off when he is not using it. So how come he can call up his home computer from the office of the bad guys, and transfer files from theirs to his? (In fact, given the lengths to which they have gone in order to secure and hide their machine, how come it even has a modem?) OK, as long as we're here, how about one more? You know how in all the movies, when the good guys get into the bad guys' office/hideout headquarters, and they discover the secret files/computer, that as soon as they put the disk with the secret data into the floppy drive the prompt "PASSWORD" appears on the screen? Yup, you guessed it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:41:13 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Donald M. Heiberg wrote: >> Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing >> Education campaign will begin Monday. >> that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing >> 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. > Does this mean that the "1" dialling prefix never needs to be used to > dial an interLATA call? Or, is it required to dial an intraLATA > intraNPA call? > How did they arrange things so that there's no transition from > mandatory eleven-digit dialling on some calls to optional eleven-digit > dialling? I thought that couldn't be done. At least, that's what they > claim in Chicago. Metro Denver, and most likely the entire state of Colorado, has used 1+ to indicate that the remaining digits are a _toll_ call. Local calls have been dialable as _straight_ seven-digits, while toll calls, whether inTRA and inTER LATA, as well as toll calls to both home and differing NPAs, have been dialed as 1/0+ten-digits. Prior to interchangeable N0X/N1X format central-office codes in (any of) Colorado's NPA(s), which was also prior to interchangeable NNX format NPA codes in 1995, 'home' NPA toll calls in Colorado could be dialed as 1/0+seven-digits. Metro Chicago's dialing and numbering plans developed differently, as did its switch history (and local and nearby-toll billing/rate plans - Denver being a geographically large monthly unlimited flat rate plan, with Chicago being message units and/or measured rate). Metro Denver (and Colorado) have probably made sure that none of its close-by NPAs have any local c/o codes 303, 970, 719, 720. However, in Metro Chicago (which is _far_ more dense and populated) there are NXX combinations used as local central-office codes _and_ used as nearby NPA codes. I think this is also the case in metro areas of California, as well as in New York City. >> But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring >> alternatives since an estimated three million of the eight million >> numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of >> them have been assigned to companies. >> 2. Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers >> stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to >> specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing >> long-distance calls. >> Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each >> new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each >> of 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. > This is ridiculous. "Rate center" is an artificial concept, > particularly for wireless carriers. You can't make an outgoing call on > a pager, last time I looked. And, with respect to a cell phone, it > won't affect long-distance rating if there's only one rate center in > Denver, and every third or fourth rate center is used in the suburbs. > No one at all would be affected if two thirds of the rate centers were > eliminated for a wireless carrier attempting to cover all of 303, and > the currently-held NPA-NXX combinations were reassigned to remaining > rate centers. >> As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. >> That would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. > How is this possible? Ratecenters are tariffed items. While most inTER-LATA carriers are offering 'flat-rate-per-minute' toll plans, inTRA-LATA toll calls (much of which will still be handled by USWest, even with the presence of CLECs) are calls _between_ particular ratecenters. To comply with the _state_ tariffs for inTRA-state calls (also inTRA-LATA), a CLEC will need at least one NXX central-office code for each ratecenter where it wants to provide service. A customer who spends much of his time in a particular town some distance outside of metro Denver, and a toll call to/from Denver, wants a pager or cellular phone, but wants it to be a local call from the area where he is going to be spending most of his time. The central-office code prefix for his wireless device will need to be based in his local ratecenter. In addition to cellular/paging/mobile/wireless services, we now have the CLECs. Their 'basic' local calling areas will need to conform to that of the incumbent LEC(s), although they can provide enhanced or optional local calling plans. To conform with 'basic' local calling of the incumbent LEC, each ratecenter that the new CLEC provides service in will need at least one local NXX c/o code. Consolidating ratecenters has been done in some areas, such as Phoenix AZ, Minneapolis-St.Paul MN, and elsewhere. In these cases, there had been individual ratecenters which at one time might have been _toll_ between each other, but _over_time_ (thirty to forty years) had evolved to all become local (EAS - Extended Area Service) to/from each other. When a CLEC would apply for NXX c/o codes for services, it would need codes for numerous ratecenters. By consolidating the ratecenters into one or only a handful, there are fewer NXX c/o codes that the CLEC would need assigned, depending of course on how many customers it would serve overall. But to consolidate a large number of ratecenters over a large geographic area into a single ratecenter, by changing short-haul inTRA-LATA and tariffed _toll_, into a _local_ call could mean a "loss of revenue" for USWest and other LECs. That's why customers would have a higher monthly telephone bill. But it would still be a flat-rate for unlimited calling within this larger geographic region, albeit a higher monthly flat-rate. The big urban areas with forced measured-rate or message-units, in California, the Midwest, and the Northeast, have numerous ratecenters for short-haul or instate calling. They are called "zones" and are frequently indicated as such in the front of the local directory, as well as in state tariff filings and telco/Bellcore rating/routing documents. The rate centers are usually called things like " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. and then " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. Each city zone and suburban zone also has its own V&H co-ordinate for short-haul toll call billing/rating. But for long-haul interLATA and/or interstate calling, when still using traditional time and distance based billing plans, there is a V&H co-ordinate applied to the city 'itself', regardless of which 'zone' where the call originated or terminated. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker wrote: > I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI > today. ... > A notation on the bill offers this explanation: > The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to > pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines > subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long > distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to > each usage customer." ... > But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged > based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to > MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this > fee? ... Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for your non PICed line. (MCI should not.) I think what is going on is a lowering of the LEC's skim off of the long distance charges (IXCs pay more to the LECs to originate and terminate a call than it costs them to carry it across the country.) Since this was a local service subsidy (or so they say) it is being replaced with per user charges. The government doesn't get any of it. The LEC pockets the whole wad. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:09:36 EST From: David Schuetz Subject: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA After arriving late in a hotel last night, I tried calling home but had forgotten my MCI calling card. So, I tried the hotel's AT&T Credit Card option. I punched in my "Major" credit card number (Citibank Visa), only to get a couple "invalid card number" errors and eventually an operator. I read her my number aloud, and she told me that they wouldn't take that visa card. Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. I told her that if AT&T didn't want my money, that was fine with me, and made the call a different way. This raises (to me) two questions. * Why the heck would they want to do this? Seems pretty stupid to me (they lost my business). * Can they even do this? I thought Visa was Visa ("It's everywhere you want to be"). If a retail outlet puts a visa logo in their window, don't they have to take *ALL* Visa cards? (provided they're legit/current/etc.) I'm wondering if I should complain to the FCC, to Visa proper, or to Citibank, or if this is "accepted practice" and I should just live with it. david. ['splain to me again why we *want* AT&T providing local service? Will they refuse checks from my bank, because it's not their favorite bank? Seems like a natural extension of the pick-and-choose visa thing...] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a merchant takes some VISA cards, he has to take all VISA cards (assuming sales authorization approval, etc). This sounds to me like a continuation of the redlining AT&T does with regards credit cards (and its own calling card) from payphones in 'bad' neighborhoods in inner-city areas. For a long time AT&T has illegally refused connections (or actually, improperly refused an extension of credit) based purely on the location of the caller and the place he was calling. As an example, you can be in Skokie or Winnetka, IL (where I am) and use a payphone with a credit card or a telco calling card to call any nice, English-speaking country in the world, i.e. Australia, the UK, etc. Now on the other hand, if you go a few miles south into Chicago, and attempt to use the very same calling/credit card to call, let's say, Israel, India, Iran, or some third-world country -- and immigrants to Chicago would quite likely be from one of those places -- the call via a payphone will be refused. That's because AT&T stereotypes those people as likely to be dishonest or deadbeats. They claim historical evidence for this in their records. You have to use a private phone to call those countries so that there can be some absolute recourse for billing and collection. It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been an operator acting ignorant. The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the customer about it. The operator is NEVER to say there is a strong possibility you are making a fraud call. She is NEVER to say 'there is a problem with calls from your ethnic neighborhood in Chicago to (whatever) country and AT&T has a hard time collecting payment.' Saying those things could easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit, etc. So instead, the operator has a few lies she is instructed to say, which ninety percent of the time or so will shag away the customer with no further ado. The three most common are: 1) The AT&T calling card is not accepted in (whatever) country. 2) The authorization system (to get approval for the charge) is down right now; no way to handle the call. 3) AT&T does not accept that particular type of VISA/MC/Amex. If you answer back to (1) saying this is a SENT PAID call and the method of payment is of no concern to the foreign telco, sometimes the operator will 'accidentally' hit the release key and dump your call. Other times she may very haughtily refer you to a supervisor who you spend ten minutes waiting on hold for if she answers at all. If you answer (2) saying the initial charge for the call is under the 'floor limit' and that normally all that happens at first is verifying the check-digit, with approval obtained ONLY after the call reaches a certain dollar-amount, you'll probably get the same response as (1). If you persevere and insist on getting a supevisor on the line and keep working your way up the ranks past the supervisor to the GCO (group chief operator) or whatever they call the person in that position these days, if your call is international, you will probably eventually reach someone at the Pittsburgh IOC who may or may not decide to manually override the computer block on your call/method of payment and put the call through. Most customers of course will not wait that long. They'll give up long before that, which is the idea. AT&T claims its behavior is legal; it claims it is not discrim- ating on the basis of national origin, area of residence, etc. It is not likely that an inner-city resident of Chicago trying to call his homeland from a payphone at the corner liquor store is ever going to be in any position to challenge the company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Y2k compliant software release Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:14:58 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. john.kuzemka!@nt.com (John Kuzemka) wrote: Thanks to the original poster for including the c.s.y2k newsgroup in the posting. I added comp.dcom.telecom as well. >> Does anyone know what release of DMS100 software >> will be ready for the year 2000? > NA00008 is the Y2K compliant SW load So what about the rest of the Nortel line. I have no idea what the DMS100 is. I'm concerned about the switches in the telco office as well as the ones in business. It's my understanding that the Nortel software is Y2K complaint. Is this correct? Do the telcos and others have access to your source code? This is it possible they've made changes which must be merged into your new source? What about links to your competitors switches for the purposes of handing off calls and exchanging billing information? BTW someone at my local telco, Telus in Alberta, has indicated that the Nortel switches are fine. However some of your competitors switches they were unsure about. Needless to say I don't expect you to comment on competitors but more the general nature of the interconnections. For example, if my telco is unable to verify that they can exchange such information with other telco's, be they in North America or overseas, I won't be able to make calls to that country. Or will I be able to make the calls, because then I pay for the call here but I will be unable to recieve calls because my telco don't know if they will get paid by the telco at the other end? Thanks, Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant The Year 2000 crisis: Will my parents or your grand parents still be receiving their pension in January, 2000? See www.granite.ab.ca/year2000 for more info. Microsoft Access Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:27:27 EST From: Steven R. Shepherd Subject: Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation Although legally/morally (if AOL has morals, which I highly doubt), AOL should not have given this information to the officials, the information that they gave was freely submitted by McVeigh to AOL to be placed in his "Profile" which ANYONE with an AOL account can obtain. Seeing that this was public (for AOL users) information, they were wrong morally/ethically but I doubt legally. If however, McVeigh did not choose to have a personal profile on AOL, or put a fake name/location, etc. in it and AOL told the officials the TRUE information (which was not the case) then there would be the legal issue. I think it's pretty sad that the military goes "gay hunting" through the Internet to find persons violating the vague and IMHO unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. S t e v e n R. S h e p h e r d CyberGate Internet Technologies | ICQ: 1412432 An ACSI Company | NetDudeFL @ EFnet Field Engineer | E-Mail: steven@gate.net (800)NET-GATE/(954)429-8065 | 9542595004@alphapage.airtouch.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: His online profile, as I understand it, contained only references to his sexual interests; it said nothing about a last name or place of residence. There were no specifics given in the profile. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Rothman Reply-To: drothman@geocities.com Organization: Global One Global Data Network Engineering (GDNE) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:25:30 GMT NYC has overlaid area codes - 202, 718, 917. I'm not exactly sure how the EO routing works, but the feature is in use. daniel rothman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 917 is for pagers and cell phones and it is overlaid on 212. However 212 and 718 are separate and distinct areas, for Manhattan versus the other boroughs of New York. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:26:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) wrote: > Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for > Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: > Propostion A: > Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of > the state have the new number. > Proposition B: > Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get > the new one. > I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area > codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like > to keep their investment in stationery, etc. > Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area > codes? The only full-fledged overlays currently in effect are the two in Maryland that started June 1st, and the brand new one in the Atlanta area. Area code 301/240: Maryland, southern and western, incl. D.C. suburbs Area code 410/443: Maryland, northern and eastern, incl. Baltimore Area code 404/770/678: Georgia, Atlanta metro area Area code 917 in New York City is an overlay of both 212 and 718, but is used mostly for wireless customers. There have been many others planned and cancelled, in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Pittsburgh; and several others proposed. However, New York City is planning to overlay 212 later this year and 718 next year, and Florida is planning overlays for Miami and Tampa Bay. Texas is discussing overlays in the Houston and Dallas areas. The fact that several of these areas have recently undergone splits has added impetus to the drive to move to overlays. Among the obstacles to overlays: * With the exception of the "grandfathering" of 917, overlays that differentiate between wireless and wireline customers are not allowed under current FCC rulings. The Chicago overlay was to be wireless-only, but it was shot down by state and federal regulators. Several states have made noises about revisiting the issue, but none has done so with any seriousness. * The new competing local carriers have felt that they would be unfairly disadvantaged by an overlay, since they expect that a much higher proportion of their customers would have numbers in the new, unfamiliar area code, while the incumbent would have mostly the old, familiar code. As a result, the FCC has ordered that in all overlay situations, all local calls must be dialed with the area code, even if it is the same. People seem to go apoplectic at the thought of dialing 10 or 11 digits for every local call. The competitive disadvantage issue surfaces even more strongly in the resistance that the CLECs give to overlay proposals. Local Number Portability, allowing customers to keep their numbers when they change local providers, will answer this charge, as will a scheme that is planned for New York City. In order to allow CLECs an equal shot at giving brand new customers numbers in the old area code, all numbers that go out of service will be returned to a common pool, from which all carriers will be able to draw. As we begin the next century, area code splits will occur less and less often, and overlays more and more often. Also, industry projections indicate that the entire U.S. will go to mandatory full-number dialing (all 10 digits, even on local calls in the same area code) within the next 10 years, give or take a couple. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #11 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jan 18 22:27:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13003; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190327.WAA13003@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #12 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jan 98 22:27:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Leonard Erickson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Ranck) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Roston) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (dmeldazis@focal.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (timc@aminal.blarg.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Julian Thomas) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Elaine Poncelet) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tom Watson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Natale) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Orin Eman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steven J. Haworth) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (morgan@datingconnection.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:50:47 PST Organization: Shadownet Telecom Digest Editor writes: > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end > products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to > do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds > and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that > Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated > in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both > browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you > don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program > making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while > leaving alone files which service various programs in common. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Pat, You are apparently unaware of some of the tricks Microsoft has pulled. For example, deliberately putting code in Win 3.1 to prevent it from working with DR-DOS. Or the more recent "upgrade" to Win 95 that was purported to give better font renderings (fewer "jaggies" on large characters). Only thing is, someone noticed that when he installed it, Netscape started doing *worse*. Upon digging into the new DLLs, he found that they specifically *checked* for Netscape and *disabled* the anti-jaggies code if the requesting process was Netscape. MS has a *long* history of this sort of thing, and also of things like not documenting features of the OS, so that MS products could run faster by using the undocumented features, while everyone else had to stick to the documented ones or risk crashes by trying to *guess* how the undocumented features worked. There are *several* lawsuits pending against Micrsoft for this sort of thing. > What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The fact that MS *will* do what they did when someone tried that stunt with DOS. Write MS apps to not run on the new OS. Which will restrict the hell out of the market for it. And want to bet that there wouldn't be a "look and feel" lawsuit? Of course, now we *do* have folks like Caldersa making their DOS (formerly NovellDOS, formerly DR-DOS) free for home use. But MS is now trying to "kill" the DOS market. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than But when one party has as overwhelming a market share as MS *and* has it in both OS *and* applications software, they can make competition next to impossible. If MS was split into OS and applications divisions *and* the only communication between said divisions was via *published* specs, I think that 90% of the complaints would go away. And MS would *still* make money hand over fist. But they'd have to do it by *competing*, not by underhanded tricks in their code. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 13:57:57 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Political satire cartoon seen in today's {Boston Globe} (and undoubtedly others): Picture two lawyers in a jail cell talking to Ted Kaczynski (of Unabomber fame), the title of the cartoon reads 'The Justice Department Solves Two Problems at Once.' One of the lawyers is speaking to Kaczynski: "We can offer you lifetime employment at Microsoft." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:32:59 -0600 (CST) From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] If he is going to take advantage of them, then yes. And I mean take advantage NOT in a "take advantage of a business opportunity" sense, but in the "take advantage of a mentally deprived individual" sense. Derek J. Balling | J:"You ARE aware that Elvis is dead, dude?" dredd@megacity.org | K:"Elvis isn't dead, son, he's just gone http://www.megacity.org/ | back home!" - W.Smith, T.L.Jones, MiB ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 15:25:20 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Christopher Wolf (@micro.ti.com) wrote: > The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the > OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office > in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including > Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out > of business quickly, and then start charging for it. I'm not 100% sure which side of this issue I'm on, but your examples don't hold up in my opinion. Take car sales as an example. When was the last time you could buy a family sedan without a radio already installed from the factory? Is the radio necessary to the operation of the car? No. Are there other vendors who want to sell you car radios with better/nicer features? Yes. Do those aftermarket vendors complain about the car makers putting in radios by default? You bet! Is it really an anti-competitive monopoly situation? The government isn't taking GM, Ford, or Chrysler to court over it. > Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look > at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're > given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also > lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the > alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. Well, the aftermarket car audio business seems to be doing OK. It's been about 20 years since (I think Chrysler was first) some cars came with a radio by default, with no choice to leave it out. > There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can > set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and > it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other > interfaces. Maybe my analogy is flawed, but you will have to show me where. A car radio is not required for the car to operate, it just lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use the car. Much like a Web browser lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use your computer. If Microsoft wants to include it in the operating system, how is that different from car companies including a radio in your new car whether you want it or not? Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: David Roston Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:35:24 -0600 To say that this (a browser) or that (a wordprocessor) is or is not part of an operating system is not for customers or the government to say. Neither a consumer nor the government goes to the manufacturer of products and tells them what is or what is not part of a product, except in unusual circumstances where Congress has given government agencies specific power in an area, e.g. food, drugs, and automobiles. If the critics are right, there is a market for a stripped down, Windows compatible operating system. It may be about the same size as the market for Intel compatible CPUs. If the market is there, someone will step into it. If it is not there, the Department of Justice has no business telling Microsoft how to go about encouraging the development of the market. The same people who are worried about having to buy Microsoft Explorer may want to look at/criticize the other programs that Microsoft has built into Windows, a word processor, a calculator, a painting drawing program, a communications program, backup/restore programs etc. What's the problem with them? Is the reason that there are no complaints about them the fact that they aren't as good of quality as Explorer? It seems as though the fact that the internet is an important communication medium (see Marshall McLuhan) is what makes the difference here. If it were merely an economic problem capitalism and the market would solve it. ------------------------------ From: dmeldazis@focal.com Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:53:10 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt "Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue." Incredible. Microsoft, by providing it's browser for free, prevents any other software company from marketing it's own product or setting up deals with PC manufacturers. I did not think that Microsoft was that strong. Let's hope that the Justice Dept. gets it right this time so only a few million of our tax dollars will be wasted. Dan ------------------------------ From: timc@animal.blarg.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 08:49:22 -0800 Derek Balling writes: >> If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with >> Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL >> and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser >> as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my >> AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my >> eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, >> but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the > operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, > etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your > machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of >your customer base demands installed". 94%? You wouldn't want to substantiate that would you? Silly argument anyway. MS doens't have a monopoly. You DO have a choice. There are still several operating systems to choose from. lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. > You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it > or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no > choice. This is completly and totally untrue. You can buy a pc with many varieties of Linux on it, you can buy a Mac, you can buy an Amiga, You have a very clear choice. > Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false > guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will > prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. That doesn't seem to be happening. browserwatch.com lists over 50 browsers for more than five platforms. Where's the monopoly? > IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. Then don't buy M$ products. > I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its > Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with > its operating system. Why should the government decide what features M$ should include in it's software? If you don't like the features, simply don't buy the product. > Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through > government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased > "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the > opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software > products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for > the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for > IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the > marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable > systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 98 12:05:17 -0500 Organization: epix Internet Services In , on 01/14/98 at 01:17 PM, Fred Farzanegan said: > You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As > part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. > You cannot do this with your PC. I did. There are a few vendors who sell machines with no OS or with OS2 (for example) preloaded. Heck, by now, there are probably even some who will preload Linux. Julian Thomas jt@epix.net http://www.epix.net/~jt In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:29:52 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and > then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing > history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of > Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring > OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a > condition of selling IE. > ... > They don't allow > Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard > drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't > "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full > price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call > it tying. Here's a quote from the OSR2 "OEM Preinstallation Guide": "Since the release of Windows 95, Microsoft has become aware of instances in which OEMs are modifying the product as a method of differentiating their hardware. This has caused considerable confusion with our end user customers. As a result, Microsoft is taking this opportunity to define the requirements and restrictions of the preinstallation process, so that all of our end users have a consistent experience with our products." This is followed by about four pages of requirements, such as not modifying the "favorites" page for IE, not deleting anything (say, the IE icon?) from the desktop, etc. In fact, an OEM is prohibited from even setting up a screen saver or desktop wallpaper! (Obviously, the big guys can negotiate out of this; witness Compaq's "Tabworks", whatever that thing is that Packard Bell puts on their machines, etc.) This completely precludes a small OEM from delivering a turnkey system; according to Microsoft an OEM must require the _end user_ to complete the installation of applications, entering registration numbers, and so on. The requirement to include IE is buried in all this as a side-effect of the fact that Microsoft chose to include it in the pre-install (from which the OEM can delete nothing). Sure, if there's no browser then some aspects of the system don't work, such as double-clicking on an HTML file. But that's not really the problem. I can't bundle up a corporate intranet solution, using Windows 95 and Netscape, without violating Microsoft's licensing agreements! I must provide half of a solution, let the customers spend an hour or so having their "End-User Experience", and _then_ I can come back and customize what is now an already-installed system. Stupid! I think it's important to loosen these restrictions, and I suppose busting the IE requirement is a Good Start. But it's not enough. Anyway, the real problem is not actually a software issue, it's just an issue involving the language and intent of Microsoft's OEM licensing agreement. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:26:03 -0500 From: Steve Bagdon Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but > either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and > install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll > have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a > 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] Not at all. I was trying to communicate that all users should start on equal ground, and be forced to download browsers (and not be spoon-fed any particular brand). Right now, whether through design or accident, IE is the default for Win95. Make all users pick a browser, don't give them one - if Microsoft wins more power to them. Steve B. ------------------------------ From: witchy@zianet.com (Elaine Poncelet) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:32:32 GMT Organization: Southwest Cyberport On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400, bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) wrote: > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I started using the "net" before there was IE or Netscape. I had just moved on from bbsing into the whole world. I got a lot of help from all of the friends that I made through the years of bbsing because I was not that computer literate. I, personally, enjoyed being able to pick and choose and update and everything else that came with learning new computer habits. I also personally beleive that most people would be better off if they would get a more rounded computer education, but I also like the fact that just about anyone can use a computer and get information at their fingertips. I really do beleive that in the end all will be worked out by the consumers themselves. Elaine ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:16:30 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. This is a very interesting discussion. You have an (alleged) operating system, i.e. Windows 95 that "requires" Internet Explorer to run. Then you have another system (Mac OS) that (funny about that) doesn't need the SAME hunk of software (Internet Explorer) to run. According to the nice people in Redmond Washington, in one case it is an "integral part", and in the other it isn't. Now which is it?? I heard that some internal memo said that the only way Microsoft can compete in the browser market (which translates to the BIG money server market) was to require the installation of IE on machines. I don't know how substantiated that rumor is, but it sounds pretty close. Today we have Internet Explorer as an "integral" part of the system, the logical conslusion is that tommorow Microsoft Word is "integral", or Microsoft Excel is "integral". Well, everyone needs to edit files, and make spreadsheets, don't they?? Simple excercise for the "unbelivers": The next time you order a computer, ask if there is a discount for NOT having Windows 95 (or whatever the next piece of stuff is) installed on the machine. I can see the dialog now: Me: "How much is Windows 95?" Mfr: "Oh, its included." Me: "No, how much is it, I need to know for accounting purposes?" Mfr: "Oh, I'll ask" ...time passes... Mfr: "Our agreement says that we pay Microsoft (enter figure here) for the installation of Windows 95 on the computer." Me: "I don't want it installed, will you deduct that cost from my invoice?" Mfr: "But you NEED an operating system!" Me: "I'm going to use another one, please deduct the cost, and don't install it" Mfr: "But we have to pay Microsoft for every one, even if we don't install it!" Me: "But I don't want it!!" Mfr: "And our procedures always put it on the disk drives!!" Me: "But I don't want it!!!" Mfr: "OK, we'll take it off. To do that, will cost an additional ($$$) of 'special' installation." Me: "You mean it is going to cost MORE to not have Windows 95??" Mfr: "That seems to be it." Me: "Never mind......" You get the picture.... ObTelecom: The phone company doesn't make you buy telephones from it, but some do provide the service. That was what the Carterfone decision was all about. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:26:16 -0500 From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Bruce Wilson ) and others wrote: This comment (made by Bruce and several others on this thread)... > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. ... may be true in general, but is incorrect when applied to IE in particular. The explanation for Microsoft's chosen course of action in this matter lies mostly in the fact that IE (or browser-like functionality) *will* no longer exist as an application distinct from the OS. This is an inevitable change, tied to the nature of the Internet/www phenomenon, and will ultimately affect many, many interfaces beyond those for computing devices. To oppose this evolution is somewhat Neanderthal, at this time. I believe the foregoing is a factual observation. In terms of opinion, I admit I lean far more toward Pat's view of the matter than that of his critics. The words and actions of the Justice Dept lawyers, Judge Jackson, and "Special Master" Lessig really fail to impress me, thus far. Indeed, I suspect that the apparent PR bonanza for NetScape and Sun in this matter, fueled for now by mostly hordes of jealous weenies, will soon wither on the vine. At least I for one sure hope it does. Yep, some of what MS does as a corporate giant is less than wonderful (but definitely not uncommon). However, what they are doing that's positive is raising the bar across the board ... eventually, someone--maybe you, maybe me (I know I've been working on my high jump) -- will hurdle it and then MS'll have to play catch up themselves. This too is inevitable. I'd much rather have to whip myself into shape for the challenge than have some lawyer/judge/ special_master hit team chop off the defending champ's legs at the knees for me. BobN ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 19:50:16 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) writes: > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. It's not that simple. Consider help files which are in some Microsoft format. Someone says: "Why not use html and dump the special format." Great idea. No special format required, we can use the browser, no need for a special viewer any more. Can you say this is bad? Well maybe with some such files which seem less capable than the help files they replace, but as a long term solution? I don't think so. Do this for OS help files and it does become a requirement to ship a browser with the OS. BTW, I do NOT use IE and usually delete it and use Netscape instead. Why? For the most trivial of reasons. I can't configure its stupid toolbar buttons to be text only like I can with Netscape and it uses too much screen real estate. Orin ------------------------------ From: sjh@idm.com (Steven J Haworth) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 20:13:10 GMT Organization: Information Data Management Fred Farzanegan (fredf@nortel.ca) wrote: > However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as > important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an > interface between applications and system resources -- applications > are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) > would love to be able to write application software that would run on > any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry > standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen > for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to > run the same application. The question on purchasing software will > not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' I've been reading this Digest for a while now, and this really needs a response (if you haven't already gotten a boat full, Pat). The new computer language Java does exactly what Fred describes above, namely allowing a vendor to write an application once and have it run on multiple operating systems w/o any changes. Everyone in the software industry is rapidly endorsing it as a new standard. Except (no suprise) Microsoft. They have 'enhanced' Java with some of their own features, so that anyone writing software w/Microsoft's brand will be forced to use Microsoft products to run it -- thus breaking the most attractive nature of Java. No it's not portable at all, except on Microsoft products. Sun (who owns the standard) is suing Microsoft over this very issue. It's yet another instance of Microsoft trying to own and control a market for their own profit. And borrowing yet another innovation developed elsewhere, but that's another story ... Steven Haworth (sjh@idm.com) Software Quality Assurance Specialist Information Data Mgmt, Inc Rosemont, IL USA My opinions are just mine ... ------------------------------ From: Morgan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:03:23 -0500 Organization: @Home Network Everybody has an opinion on the Microsoft vs. USA case, so here's mine: Do not forget how Microsoft got itself into this position! They agreed to not require OEMs to bundle applications software ONLY because the feds were threatening to investigage Microsoft's onerous and possibly illegal licensing arrangements. Microsoft thought at the time that it would be better to give a little (no bundling of apps) than have them investigate other monopolistic practices involved with licensing the basic operating systems themselves. Being cocky, Microsoft conveniently forgot that it had made a deal with the devil. They deserve to pay the price. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #12 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jan 19 00:13:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA19858; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190513.AAA19858@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #13 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jan 98 00:13:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Michael P. Deignan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jason Lindquist) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Daniel Seyb) Re: (Alleged) Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeff Colbert) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Robert Wiegand) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (pastark@cloud9.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeremy Parsons) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Hayes) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tim Gorman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Adam Atkinson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gail M. Hall) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (mord@rum.org) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (rtcy@bigfoot.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Anthony Argyriou) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Barry Adair) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.D. Baldwin) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kh6hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.NO-SPAM (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 17:47:57 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Steve Bagdon wrote: > Browsers might be a dime a dozen to people like you and me, but to the > 'average' computer purchaser they take what's on their computer when > they buy it, and that's what they use. Years ago, Norton had a dos shell called "NDOS". Using the logic behind the DOJ action, Microsoft should have been forced to unbundle COMMAND.COM from their operating system, so users could be free to install NDOS.COM or COMMAND.COM, whichever they purchased separately. MD (microsoft butt-boy) ------------------------------ From: linky@see.figure1.net (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 23:31:41 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as David Wuertele wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal preference is for Unix; > and I am going to see if I can put it, or something close to it > like Linux on my laptop in a partioned area. I may not be successful; > I won't know until I try. PAT] Many people have installed Linux, and other free UNIXes on laptops. You might find this URL a good starting point for Linux: Jason Lindquist <*> "Holograms don't lie, Danny boy..." linky@see.figure1.net -- Michael Garibaldi, January 2762 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:34:27 -0500 From: Daniel Seyb Reply-To: danseyb@snip.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt A couple months ago there was a thread complaining about 'sleazy' pay phone operators. Someone pointed out that the customers were not the people using the phones, but the people who owned the bus stations, airports, malls and the like. There was a great cry that "something MUST be done" and then the thread faded away. Now we have a very similar thread, only for some reason TELECOM Digest is on the other side of the argument. There may be a few people out there who went out, bought Windows 95, and installed it, but 90% (probably more like 99.99%) bought a machine that already had Windows 95 installed. Microsoft's customers are not the people using the computers. Microsoft's customers are companies like Dell and Gateway and CompUSA. If it is immoral to make people walk across the street to save ten cents on a phone call, how much worse is it to make them spend hundreds of dollars on "free" software? ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:14:27 EST Subject: Re: (Alleged) Microsoft witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT said : > ...And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you > will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and > wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things > in this country today which were established -- and continue in > operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the > largesse of John Rockefeller. > ... > What else do you think he should have done? Not to be an ingrate, but you should call it what it is ... bribery, pure and simple. If you make ungodly amounts of money, and spend some here and there for "good" causes, the usual rules don't apply to you? Baloney. Besides, who says that a Rockefeller (or a Gates, for that matter) has *my* best interests at heart? Admittedly, it's all very nice that Rockefeller spent all that money in and around Chicago (as did Andrew Carnegie on libraries across Pennsylvania), but at what cost? Monopolies cause artificially high prices, so it's only fair that Rockefeller spent some of his bucks money on the po' folks; if he hadn't run one of the most blatantly anticompetitive business organizations in American history, then the po' folks mightn't have been so poor. Be not fooled ... the ends DO NOT justify the means. Fred Goldstein's post hit it right on the head. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the concept of antitrust law generally, several years ago, Microsoft >specifically< agreed to abide by certain provisions of those laws. It's a basic principle of law (yes, I'm a lawyer) that you can't bellyache about the terms of a consent decree (non-technically, a settlement agreement) after you sign it. If Microsoft didn't like the antitrust laws, or the terms of the deal offered, they shouldn't have settled the case. No one forced them to do so, but they did; now they've been caught cheating, and badmouthing the cops doesn't change anything. Bill Levant ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:32:31 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Any company who is aware that they are in danger of being anti-trusted would thread very lightly to avoid attracting attention of the feds. Microsoft, instead of downplaying its near monopoly, is flaunting it and trying to extend its monopoly beyond the operating system. WAY BEYOND. It is that arrogance which is making authorities very curious about MS. Just how far do you allow Microsoft to go before you wake up and have to force it to dismantle itself ? Bill Gates is making no excuses about its plans to control the world. Its intentions are good: by controlling the world, they can move it forwards faster. (No need to wait for committees to set standards etc). By controlling many areas of life from microwave ovens to computers to television distribution, Bill Gates will be able to integrate everything into "information appliances". (And your toaster won't operate unless IE is installed in it :-) I think that IE is just a small issue. The bigger issue is: just how far can you allow MS to go, and once you do force MS to disband, just what will the computer industry look like. Perhaps the governments have decided what the long term direction will be and are using IE to start to set a direction. MS has proven that it has no intention to self control its monopoly. So who will? ------------------------------ From: AntiSpam.Jeff.Colbert@mci.com (Jeff Colbert) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Aqua Knights of Atlantis Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:36:50 GMT James Bellaire wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V18 #7, Pat wrote about Netscape: >> If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with >> Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. Just a minor point ... IE is the browser in AOL, but it is IE 3 not 4 with a desktop ... etc. If I remember correctly, Microsoft purchased Mosaic, which was languishing in Netscape's shadow. They slapped their name on it and sent it out. Since then they have been improving and adding on to it. I believe that the founders of Netscape were involved in the initial design of Mosiac before before leaving the National Center for Supercomputing at Champaign-Urbana to start Netscape. Jeff ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 98 22:47:05 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Eric Ewanco writes: > What stinks to high heaven about the Microsoft action is that they are > compelling -- threatening even -- vendors to include MS software with > all their PCs. They are using their virtual monopoly on operating > system software to strong-arm vendors into biasing their systems > against MS's competition. Actually, I believe it's worse then that. My undrstanding is that Microsoft not only required computer vendors to include IE but they also required them to NOT install Netscape. Bob Wiegand | Remove the "$" from my e-mail address before replying. "Bill, I don't do Windows" - Ray Bradbury to Bill Gates ------------------------------ From: pastark@cloud9.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 16 Jan 1998 04:46:02 GMT Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, NY, USA TELECOM Digest Editor said: > And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you > will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and > wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things > in this country today which were established -- and continue in > operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the > largesse of John Rockefeller. To paraphrase a famous quote - "Bill Gates ain't no Rockefeller." Look at some of the other current philanthropists. Ted Turner gave how much to the UN -- was it a billion bucks?? George Soros has donated tremendous amounts to all sorts of causes. So Bill Gates is an order of magnitude richer, and what has he done for charity lately? December 13, 1976 (or perhaps 1975 - don't remember any more), Bill Gates wrote a letter to the editor of the {Wall Street Journal}. It was in response to a fairly mild comment about Microsoft that had been earlier made by Manzi of Lotus. I would suggest that you make an effort to get and read it, because it shows the true nature of the man. It is a vicious personal attack on Manzi, totally out of proportion to Manzi's comments, which were in no way personal, but merely stated that, as a huge monopoly, Microsoft should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the ordinary corporation. Gates ended with something to the effect that "while they talk, we innovate." That's ridiculous -- name one Microsoft product which is truly original. Basic? Existed before Gates wrote his Altair code. MS-DOS? Microsoft bought that from another company. Excel? Visicalc and 123 were much earlier. Windows? Xerox and Apple were there first. Access? Lots of other DB programs existed before. Internet Explorer? Mosaic and Netscape were there first. Go ahead -- try to find something they did first. The closest might be Visual Basic, but even in that case there was at least one outfit that had some addon functions for Quick Basic that did a lot of the functions first. The truth is that Microsoft has a tremendous marketing savvy. They can recognize other companies' products that would make a hit, write a knock-off copy (if they can't buy the company), and then market the hell out of it. The result is that they pounce onto a market, and by sheer marketing muscle, product tie-ins (and huge amounts of cash) drive the previous companies out of it. Look how neatly they killed off DrDOS just by bundling DOS 7 with Windows 95. By bundling network software with Windows, they are killing off Novell. By bundling in disk compression, they got rid of Stac. By copying the look-and-feel of the Mac, they are killing Apple. People used to joke about the "domino theory" of communism. What is different about Microsoft's approach to software domination? Most software companies have come to realize that once you hook a customer onto a product, you can then nickel-and-dime him to death by selling him upgrades. Only Microsoft is rich enough at this point to hook the customer by giving him a free product like Internet Explorer. I think people would be a lot less likely to pounce on Microsoft if they were to promise that IE will forever be free. But we all know that that will not be -- once people get hooked on it, and once the competition is gone, IE will suddenly become yet another cash cow for Microsoft. Before WIndows 95, at least DOS came with a programming language - GWBasic. At the very least, that meant that a sufficiently astute user could write his own programs to do things. But note that WIndows 95 no longer comes with Basic. That means that today's user is totally dependent on purchasing additional software to do anything with the machine at all. You MUST buy more software to use the computer. And Microsoft's aim is to dominate that application market. That is not a healthy state of events. Take another example: Suppose that one oil company - say Mobil - were to become so dominant that it drove all other oil companies out of business. Once that was done, suppose it modified the gasoline so that a certain engine modification were absolutely necessary to allow an engine to use it -- and only Mobil made the modification kit. The fact that every car manufacturer would now have to purchase that mod kit from Mobil, and every car owner would have to buy all his gas from Mobil, would be a national disaster. The government would be forced to step in to prevent Mobil from taking advantage of the situation. Well, the current dominance of Windows is also a potential disaster, for it is no different. Every business needs a computer; regardless of who you buy a computer from, you must get certain modifications to it to get it to run Windows, you must buy Windows to get it to run, and in some application areas, you almost cannot get software from anyone else besides Microsoft. If computers were merely a luxury, that sort of situation could be tolerated. But they are not a luxury any more -- they are a necessity. As such, a monopoly cannot be tolerated any more than a monopoly in transportation, or communications, or food, or medical care, any other necessity. If Microsoft were a "beneficent monopoly" which was content to make a "reasonable" profit, then perhaps an exception could be made. But Microsoft is in no way beneficent - they are a cut-throat company which does not hesitate to kill off competition in attempts to maximize its own profit. Total dominance - or even 80 or 90% dominance - by such a company of any market - especially of a market for a necessity - is a menace. Pete ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: David Wuertele Date: 15 Jan 1998 14:48:02 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. > for those of you who came in late, he also gave me ten thousand > dollars a couple years ago for the benefit of this Digest. The > money was not to preach his gospel, nor was it intended as an > inducement to shut my trap and keep it shut. There were no strings > attached at all. I have no problems with his methodology at all > in business matters. Heh. I'm sure you don't now. > And God speed to anyone who wants to work on a new OS or other > software to get away from using his. We will all benefit from the > competition. Too bad this isn't true. Working on a new OS (or old OS, for that matter) in no way provides competition with MS. If you want to compete with MS, you must use marketing, the law, and every sneaky trick you can slip by the law in order to create the *perception* of "benefit." If you want all to "benefit," you will find a way to expose and halt MS's manipulation of the market, so that the market will be free again to choose. David Wuertele ------------------------------ From: Jeremy.Parsons@iname.com (Jeremy Parsons) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:53:08 GMT blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) wrote in : > In article , Telecom Digest Editor > writes: >> So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems >> more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt >> for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. > What was it, Pat? Was this a Microsoft press release? Are you > worried about the value of your Microsoft stock? > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. I don't especially mean to be an apologist for Microsoft, but I think there's a real case that a browser is exactly the sort of thing you put in a modern operating system. After all, without one, you don't have an Intranet solution, and that's the current sharp edge of competition. As far as I can see, it only becomes anti-competitive if the intention is specifically to knock out the competition unfairly. Given Microsoft's supremacy in operating systems, I think that if they ever charge for the browser (which would indicate that it wasn't really part of the o/s after all), or hike the price of the operating system unreasonably (which is the commercial equivalent), that would be very suggestive. If you compare this situation to Microsoft's strategy with DOS to Windows, there is only really one difference - timescale. Way back when there were a number of viable competitors in DOS family PC operating systems, extensions and GUIs. By the time you reach Windows 95 that door is firmly shut - which took several years. With Internet Explorer the whole process is happening in a period of months. Curiously, with 20/20 hindsight I think that over-commitment to the standards process is what has stopped Netscape from leveraging its early dominance. It needed to keep itself, and the market with it, far enough ahead of Microsoft that the latter would have been forced to build open interfaces into the operating system. As it is, Microsoft put its formidable resources into overtaking Netscape in key areas, and has then been able to exploit the fact that DOS/Windows isn't subject to standardisation. I think of (and admire!) Microsoft as the 'odd-shaped cog' company. They have recognised the power of being different, while trying hard to force everyone else to be standard ... Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:37:47 -0500 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Recently, we've all had a chance to have a good moan about Microsoft. Personally, I can think of plenty of things to moan about too: the bloatware, the bugs, the incomplete documentation. Some of Microsoft's business ethics and practices are pretty dubious too. However, most of the moaning seems to be from the viewpoint of frustrated programmers complaining about how impossible it is to compete with Microsoft. As a sometime programmer but mainly a user of computer systems , my viewpoint is a bit different. The harsh fact is as follows: Suppose that it costs one million dollars to write (or buy in) some utility. If Microsoft is expecting to ship 10 million copies of some software, they can buy 10 such utilities, mark them up 100% and stick them on the CDROM for a price increase of $2 per copy. As a user, I might only want one of the 10 utilities, but to go out and buy it elsewhere is bound to cost me $20 or more plus my time to investigate and purchase. It'll cost that much for another manufacturer to duplicate, package and distribute the program, let alone recoup the million dollars from a much smaller number of buyers. Even in the shareware channel, there are per registration costs and lots of people who won't register. This is a fundamental fact of the software market, as unavoidable as the sun setting at night. If it wasn't Microsoft in that position, someone else would be and they might be even more rapacious. At least Microsoft does seem to have some sort of vision for the computer industry beyond mere short term profits. As a user, I'm also glad to know that everyone who has installed Windows is going to have access to a standard set of utilities. They might not be "best of breed" but they will work, so I can send them files or programs or give them instructions over the phone to carry out some task at hand. The Internet browser is just a particularly visible utility. Before we attack ordinary computer users for technical illiteracy, we should remember that most people use computers because they have to in order to do their jobs. They don't want to learn lots of technical details or evaluate various bits of software (any more than they want to check the tariffs of a dozen phone companies before they make a call -- to get a telecom related bit in). They just want to turn the damn thing on and get on with what they have to do. If they can buy a single CDROM from Microsoft or whoever, insert it, click INSTALL and have a working system set up for them, they'll be happy. If only Microsoft would ditch the animated paperclips and work on the bugs, I'm sure most of us would be happy to sup with them. And yes, the Mac was closer to the ideal. If only Apple hadn't been so greedy ... Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:55:00 -0600 An operating system today typically has an integrated user interface. What is integrated is determined by the designer of the user interface, not by government lawyers. Lotus SmartSuite provides integrated Web access to all kinds of things such as dictionaries, news headlines, and weather. Why shouldn't the user interface provided with Windows do the same thing? Saying that it shouldn't simply because Microsoft is a monopoly is not sufficient. That isn't a reason, it is an excuse. As usual, what it appears is really happening is that the government is expanding its sphere of influence. This time they are trying to become de facto experts at user interface design. I think they have adequately shown their inability to even understand the simplest software design issues. I certainly wouldn't want them designing any user interface I am going to use. Why can't Microsoft include anything they want in the operating system? As long as they don't prevent optional programs from being used, they have not limited any customers choice in any way. Customers being stupid or unable to make choices is NOT a reason for the government to become the product designers for Microsoft products. That, in itself, limits the choices available for knowledgeable customers. Since when was the Constitution amended to provide the government the power to design software products? Where were they given the power to define MY choices? > The issue is not about the browser. The issue is whether Microsoft is > "acting" like a monopoly by "bundling" the browser in the OS, thus > requiring consumers to accept a product as a condition of sale of > Windows in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. This is going to sound nasty and I mean it to. It amazes me to see such a knowledgeable group of people unable to even fully define the issue here. This is NOT just a question of bundling a stand-alone product into an operating system. IE is being integrated into Windows to ENHANCE the capabilities of Windows by providing seamless access to Web resources. This isn't a battle of standalone products. The mere fact that it is being framed that way stands as evidence to the ability of Netscape and DOJ lawyers to spin the issue into a narrowly defined sphere. I mentioned Lotus Smartsuite above. It is a prime example of the concept being developed by Microsoft. Smartsuite's integrated, synergistic access to word processor, spreadsheet, graphics, time mgmt tools, and web resources is the reason I purchased it and use it every day. THAT is where I want my operating system to go as well. I want it to be an integrated, synergistic tool for my use, not just a grouping of standalone products being run by a piece of software interfacing a hard disk. If that was all I wanted I would have stayed with DOS and Lotus 123. Netscape is being left behind in the advancement of software usability. It developed a good product and made a lot of money off of it. Rather than continue to develop their vision, however, they focused on making a fancier and fancier standalone product (kind of like American auto manufacturers in the 70's). What you are seeing now is a last gasp effort to keep its standalone product viable in the face of advancing user interface/cyberspace resource paradigms by playing on the dreams of government bureaucrats looking for a high profile issue on which to build careers. The resemblance this whole situation has to Chrysler/GM/Ford versus Toyota more than two decades ago is hilarious. Chrysler/GM/Ford didn't really make any headway against Toyota until they finally revamped their vision and their product paradigm, regardless of the penalties they convinced the government to apply against the imports of Toyota. The same thing is going to apply to Netscape. Tim Gorman SWBT ( I speak only for myself) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:43:19 +0000 From: Adam Atkinson Reply-To: etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt I don't see the problem with the bundling myself. After all, with Windows you get Write (free crap word processor) and Paint (free crap paint package). What I do object to, though, is e.g. telling ISPs they can distribute IE to users free as long as they promise not to admit any other browser even exists. Plus e.g. PCs coming with Windows whether you like it or not. Adam Atkinson (etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se) Man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:08:33 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600, Derek Balling posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt": > The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the > operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, > etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your > machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of > your customer base demands installed". I have no problem with Microsoft shipping applications such as a browser with Windows. I think, though, that installing Microsoft products should not mess with my use of other software that I want on my system whether I install those MS products before or after I install products from other companies. >> As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite >> easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to >> remove either one you don't want. But if you install one after the other, the last one will try to associate itself as THE browser. Only later will you be asked, "Hey, which one do you want?" Windows should allow us to associate more than one software with extensions. Because of Microsoft's refusal to realize that more than one application can do things, we have to figure workarounds or buy yet more software to get around the Microsoft trickery. > Except that IE4 is VERY ugly in its uninstall procedures. Try it some > time, and if you're not completely hosed, call Microsoft and rejoice, > for you are among the few. IE4 (and up) seem to be designed strictly > from the "yeah, you can uninstall me, but god have mercy on your soul >if you do" perspective. This is what the judge should be looking at, not whether it shows up on your Desktop! You should be able to uninstall any Microsoft product without hurting your other applications. > Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other > browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage > of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE > at revenue. Personally, I didn't like Hyperterminal, so I went and got another comm program. If the product is really good, then we will be happy to use what comes with the system. If not, we go buy one that works better for us. >> And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the >> Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available >> free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone >> who asks? > That's fine. That's a very acceptable answer. As long as when it gets > to the end user, it is NOT installed as a mandatory part of the OS > load. _And_ that it will not interfere with other software that we want to use! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with > IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. That is exactly why the judge needs to look into this issue. If Windows comes with an uninstaller, then the uninstaller should not do harm to my system if I choose to uninstall any application, especially from a competing company! > I would instead resort to manually removing it, by going into DOS and > the proper directories, then one by one removing the files which were > used just by IE, while leaving alone the files which although used > by IE were common to other aspects of Windows 95. And I would be > rather conservative at that, preferring to err in favor of leaving > a file around that I was unsure of rather than removing it if I was > not sure. I could live with a little unidentified/unused trash on > the hard drive if I was not certain of its purpose. And obviously > before I began any removal action, I would have a complete backup > of the whole thing. But I really cannot see myself removing it; > there are some things I've found that IE is better at while in > other situations, Netscape is superior. By now as you might have > guessed, I have gone through the telecom web pages with a fine tooth > comb, looking at them both via IE and Netscape in great detail. > I've made a few minor adjustments to improve the appearance of my > web pages. I'm lucky to have both installed, as well as Lynx. PAT] This is what a good uninstaller should do. The "average" PC user does not generally have the knowledge and time to be this careful. Windows supposedly comes with an uninstaller. It is fraud to the consumer if that doesn't work properly and leave the machine in good working order when the uninstall is done. Maybe someone should put Microsoft in court for defrauding the consumers by saying they have an uninstaller when it doesn't do what they promised. Their uninstaller might be looked on by a clever lawyer as a Trojan horse. ;-) Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:30:51 -0500 From: Mord Organization: Rum Consortium Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe > that once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market > MSIE will still be free?" It's not a "free" product now. The use of said product requires you to have already purchased (well ignoring the piracy issue) a MafiaSoft product. I think calling IE free muddies the issue greatly. If there was versions available for as much of a variety of OS's as netscape currently supports all freely downloadable, then I would say yes its free. But as it stands now it's either Mafiasoft OS, MacOS, or Solaris (not a very good implementation either.) I did notice that Microsoft released NetShow for quite a few different OS's however this product is hobbled on platforms other than the "selected" platforms by missing codecs. The strange thing about the whole DOJ deal is all the DOJ is asking is for them to unbundle the browser from the OS (on new installs done by companies, not consumers.) I think it's important to remember here that the DOJ isn't asking M$ to quit giving it away, merely to unbundle it. And yes this could give rise to companies building bundles out of m$ and other products as a single entity, and I'm not sure legally how that would work if m$ is not allowed to do something that other companies are allowed to do (but I'm not a lawyer thankfully.) Anyway just a few thoughts ... ------------------------------ From: rtcy@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 05:31:57 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST, Telecom Digest Editor wrote: [lots of ASS kissing snipped from the brown nose of PAT] What a blow hard you are PAT, IE NEVER has been or will be part of the OS and to download a 20 MEG demo from EUDORA only to find that 2/3's of the file is IE$(this is not a typo MS paid them $)ie4 something I have three dozen copies of in my cd's that come in evry month and then to see EVERY piece of software out there CRAM this stuff down my throat angers me to no END. GOD kill MS into bankruptcy please! I never have or ever will use ie4! NETSCAPE FOR EVER! AMEN. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 06:04:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500, James Bellaire wrote: > IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. James remembers incorrectly. The browser which comes with AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 is MSIE 3, partially crippled. In particular, the mail and news are not available, and the controls on the top of the browser window are the same as the old AOL browser. Netscape offers an AOL version of its browser, since an AOL connection is a regular internet connection. When I got it (about ten months ago) it did not come with the page-editing that 3.01 Gold offered, and it came with a special set of bookmarks. A list of browsers used by AOL in its various incarnations can be found at: http://webmaster.info.aol.com/BrowTablePrint.html Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Adair Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:54:50 -0600 Pat, I have been reading about the Microsoft IE4 and Windows 95, I really don't think Win95 is what they are complaining about. Windows 95 the browser can be changed fairly easy, but in Win98 it is a part of the OS, but it has not been released yet so if Netscape and Janet Reno have it, it is stolen and they cannot say that, so they are complaining about 95. I was running IE4 and Netscape both, but after the silly, court thing started, I deleted Netscape, and it will never be on my computer again, I have always been told if you want to sell your product, DO NOT put the other product down, but to sell the good points on yours. This to me looks as if Netscape can not make a product as good so they want the other to be down on there level. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you know Justice does not have a pirated copy of '98? Hey, they have pirated copies of lots of software at Justice. They tend to buy one copy then mass-produce it in-house for every attorney in the place. They've been sued for it, and the one company finally had to go out of business when Justice refused to pay them for the several hundred copies the department ripped off of the product the company was making. PAT] ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:55:14 GMT In article , Eric Ewanco wrote: >> And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality >> and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign >> now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, >> Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, >> getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this >> point? > Whence this gratuitous swipe? If you have an objective and justified > complaint to make about this man, present it. I will not be swayed by > empty rhetoric. My Microsoft-hating credentials are in pretty good order, but it's worth noting that if even a tenth of what's been alleged (and not denied, I note) about the professor's strongly and repeatedly expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments, as well as his direct personal and professional ties to Microsoft's major (only?) competitor in the field under review, then justice demands that he step aside, and immediately. Even Ted Bundy deserved a fair trial, and Microsoft has legitimate cause for complaint if this guy is allowed to go forward. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The latest word on this from late last week is that not only has he refused to step aside, the court has told Microsoft to shut up and deal with Lessig running the show. In fact, the court told Microsoft that if they dared to complain about Lessig at all they would be severely punished for doing so. Isn't that marvelous? Apparently there is not going to be even a pretense of a fair trial. You'd have thought between the Justice lawyers and the court they would have taken Lessig aside and told him to cool it just a little; to not allow his hatred and bias toward Microsoft to be quite so apparent, lest Microsoft get them reversed on an appeal. But no, Lessig will be allowed to let it all spill out; to froth at the mouth to his heart's content and the court has warned Microsoft to not speak up about it. My advice to Microsoft at this point in time -- not that they asked me anything -- that ten thousand did not purchase legal advice or consulting services -- would be to bail out as soon as they can. Find the cheapest way out and run for their corporate lives. There isn't going to be a fair, unbiased proceeding. Decisions have already been reached and the current mockery is just to make it all 'look right' and make the government look good in the eyes of consumers. But you want to know the truth? The consumers be damned! At this point it is just a question of whether they hold a gun to Gates' head and pick a few million dollars out of his pocket or if they follow him to the bank and clean him out completely. Police always tell folks to never argue with someone who is pointing a gun at you in a holdup; just give them what they asked for and hope they remain somewhat rational. I have to suggest the same course of action to Microsoft at this point. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #13 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 20 08:17:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA22925; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801201317.IAA22925@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #14 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 08:17:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson www.nanpa.com is Up and Running (Linc Madison) Two Years After Big Telecom Bill: Promises Unfulfilled (Tad Cook) Telecom Update (Canada) #116, January 19, 1998 (Telecom Update) Users Don't Mind Mergers if They Get New, Better Services (Adam Gaffin) Reverse Billed Callback (Ankur Lal) Being Fired for Personal Web Site Content (Cameron Barrett) Bell Atlantic (in NYC) Yanking Flat Rate? (Jeremy M. Posner) Reminder: CEME '98 (Soon Y. Choi) Usenet and the New Millenium (Ronda Hauben) Stupid Question of the Week (Bill Levant) Connection Speeds Over 28.8k (John J. Brassil) Sprint Asks for SSN (Anton Sherwood) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:46:09 -0800 From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: www.nanpa.com is Up and Running Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM The new website for Lockheed-Martin's North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) is up and running without requesting a password. Evidently, the password protection over the weekend was just to keep the public out until the official unveiling today. The website contains a number of useful items, plus a blurb that says that all future Planning Letters (PLs) will be available electronically on the website for free; Bellcore started charging $10 each for these a year or two ago. The website is accessible at < http://www.nanpa.com/ > Better yet, they don't have those @#@$!@!! "bc.dynjava?GHSLHWRYQOWIEYRQER" URLs that Bellcore started using in their website upgrade a couple of months ago! (Although I must say the ugly URLs were worth it, if only to get rid of the hideous yellow telephone that used to (dis)grace the Bellcore NANP pages.) ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Subject: Two Years After Big Telecom Bill: Promises Unfulfilled Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:43:37 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Two years after big telecom bill: Promises unfulfilled By Jeannine Aversa Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- These were the promises of the telecommunications bill: lower cable TV rates, lower phone bills and a dazzling array of work and entertainment choices only a touchtone away. Two years later, the reality is higher prices and not much competition. The average American doesn't have another local cable or phone company to switch to. And the promised explosion of innovative new services is more a whimper than a bang. "This new law is truly revolutionary legislation that will bring the future to our doorstep," President Clinton said when he signed the measure Feb. 8, 1996. He predicted "consumers will receive the benefits of lower prices, better quality and greater choices in their telephone and cable services." Supporters in Congress, at the Federal Communications Commission and in industry made the same claims. "It will start an explosion of new devices being available to American citizens. There will be an explosion of new investment in our country," said then-Sen. Larry Pressler, a co-author of the measure. But those optimistic forecasts have yet to come true. In 1997, cable TV rates rose 6.9 percent, local phone rates rose 1 percent and in-state toll call rates went up 2.8 percent while interstate long-distance rates declined 4.3 percent, according to the government. Consumer prices for all goods and services went up 1.7 percent during the same period. In 1996, the bureau reported across-the-board increases in cable and phone prices. It also costs more to make a call from most pay phones. Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., another co-author of the bill, predicted it would break up "two of the biggest government monopolies left -- the monopolies in local telephone service and in cable television. Beside lower rates and better service, the result will be innovative new products and services." Instead, long-distance companies have had trouble building local phone businesses, and local phone and cable companies have scaled back plans to invade each others' businesses. And key provisions in the 1996 law aimed at opening the $100 billion local phone business to competitors were overturned in federal court rulings last year. Federal regulators are now scrambling to find ways to boost competition for cable and local phone companies and to lower soaring cable rates. AT&T has stopped marketing local phone service and MCI has suffered steep losses from local phone investments. Both companies in part blame regulations they say make it too expensive to provide local phone service. Authors of the law assumed it would encourage cable companies to get into the telephone business and phone companies to start offering cable. "Talk about broken promises, one of the premises of the `96 act was that the telephone companies would get involved in the provision of video," said Clinton's top telecommunications policy adviser, Larry Irving. Banking on more competition, Congress decided to end the FCC's authority to regulate cable TV rates on March 31, 1999. With competition not materializing as envisioned, some in Congress say they'll push to extend the FCC's rate authority. "Americans do not have real choice in the provision of cable TV services," said FCC Chairman Bill Kennard. A new FCC report found that there's head-to-head cable competition in only 81 communities. And competition to cable from satellites, wireless cable and others is growing more slowly than anticipated. Consumer groups, which want the government to do more to hold down cable and phone rates, call the law a failure. "Virtually none of the promise of price reductions and competition has materialized. On the contrary, these industries are becoming more entrenched monopolies with rates spiraling upwards," said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers Union's Washington office. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:07:10 -0500 From: Telecom Update Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #116, January 19, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 116: January 19, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Ice Storm Cuts Phone Service to 115,000 ** Telcos Restructure Accounting, Take Writedowns ** Gray Market Suit Withdrawn ** Bell Sells Major Office Buildings ** AT&T Cuts International Rates ** RCMP Adopts FleetNet From MTS ** Teleglobe, Qwest Swap Capacity ** SR Telecom Partners With Siemens ** Nortel Completes Broadband Networks Purchase ** MetroNet Completes Toronto Network ** ISPs Plan Challenge to Sympatico ADSL Rates ** Save 50%-75% on Telecom Books ============================================================ ICE STORM CUTS PHONE SERVICE TO 115,000: At its peak, the ice storm in Quebec and Eastern Ontario cut phone service to 115,000 Bell Canada customers. Service to another 2.2 million was maintained through Central Office backup generators in areas of power failure. On January 15, about 4,000 customers were still without service. TELCOS RESTRUCTURE ACCOUNTING, TAKE WRITEDOWNS: Responding to the introduction of price caps and local competition, several telcos have announced one-time charges resulting from a change in accounting practices to reduce the book value of capital assets. The following writedowns have been announced for the fourth quarter of 1997: ** BCE Inc (Ontario, Quebec): $2.9 Billion ** Bruncor (NB): $69.6 Million ** Island Tel (PEI): $11 Million ** MTS (Manitoba): $28.3 Million ** MT&T (Nova Scotia): $190 Million ** NewTel (Newfoundland): $85 Million Similar announcements are expected soon from BC Tel and Telus. GRAY MARKET SUIT WITHDRAWN: On January 9, lawyer William McKenzie withdrew a suit filed in the name of several Canadian broadcasters against 21 dealers and distributors of gray market satellite dishes (see Telecom Update #114 and #115). ** WIC Western International Communications said January 15 that it will step up legal moves to get gray market satellite dealers to hand over customer lists so that U.S. satellite companies can block access. BELL SELLS MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS: Bell Canada has sold its major office buildings in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa to TrizecHahn Corp. for $750 Million. Previously, Bell's real estate arm, Nexacor Realty Management, had planned to spin off these assets into a real estate investment trust. AT&T CUTS INTERNATIONAL RATES: AT&T Canada has reduced rates for residential customers to 56 countries by an average of 15%. Flat-rate round-the-clock pricing will now apply to 60 countries. RCMP ADOPTS FLEETNET FROM MTS: MTS Mobility has signed a 10-year, $60 Million agreement to provide the RCMP with Manitoba-wide FleetNet service. FleetNet, an enhanced mobile radio service, combines features of a cellphone, walkie-talkie, and pager as well as transmitting data. TELEGLOBE, QWEST SWAP CAPACITY: Teleglobe will provide U.S. fiber carrier Qwest with four 155 Mbps transatlantic circuits. In exchange, Teleglobe will receive unspecified U.S. circuits from Qwest at a later date. SR TELECOM PARTNERS WITH SIEMENS: Montreal-based SR Telecom and Siemens have made a deal to jointly market and do research for SR Telecom's SR500 point-to-multipoint networks and Siemens' Wireless Local Loop products. NORTEL COMPLETES BROADBAND NETWORKS PURCHASE: Northern Telecom has completed the purchase of all common shares of Broadband Networks Inc, a developer of wireless broadband equipment. Winnipeg-based BNI will become a unit of Nortel's Wireless Networks division. (See Telecom Update #106) METRONET COMPLETES TORONTO NETWORK: MetroNet Communications has completed installation of a fiber optic network running through 9 km of abandoned water pipes in downtown Toronto and will officially begin service January 21. ISPs PLAN CHALLENGE TO SYMPATICO ADSL RATES: A group of ISPs are considering a challenge to Sympatico's $69/month ADSL rate on the grounds that Sympatico is offering the service at "far below its 'apparent' cost." Contact Lorien Gabel at lgabel@interlog.com SAVE 50%-75% ON TELECOM BOOKS: Angus TeleManagement is offering overstocked titles on Canadian telecommunications for 50%-75% off regular prices, while excess stocks last. ** Canadian Telecom in Transition (1995) -- $13.95 (Save 50%) ** Long Distance Alternatives in Canada (1994) -- $12.25 (Save 75%) ** Phone Pirates (1993) -- $27.50 (Save 50%) ** For full descriptions and reader evaluations, go to http://www.angustel.ca/educatn/bk.html To order, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Users Don't Mind Mergers if They Get New, Better Services Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:46:40 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Last week, following the AT&T/Teleport announcement, we commissioned a survey to see how our readers felt about telecom mergers and competition. By a narrow margin, users gave thumbs up to the idea of carrier consolidation if that union delivers unified, end-to-end WAN services. But users demanded a quid pro quo: a quick end to the telephone company legal wars, with full freedom for regional Bell operating companies to offer long-distance service - some 80% said they felt the RBOCs should be allowed into long distance now. This is in contrast to our (completely unscientific) online conference on RBOCs and long distance, in which most participants said RBOCs should be kept out of long distance for failing to open up their local markets. You can get the complete results (and jump into our conference) at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0119survey.html In addition, you'll find a link there to an article about AT&T getting ready to announce a wide range of partnerships, with everybody from vendors that provide monitoring of service level agreements to RBOCs. If you haven't used NWFusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ From: Ankur Lal Subject: Reverse Billed Callback Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:47:52 +0530 I would like to find out if there are intelligent switches which can identify calling party using caller-id' and then re-initiate a call to that number. One could use callback for Toll-free effectively. The user calls the DID number and hangs up after two minutes; the computer finds out the user's phone number and stores it in memory. If then calls the host for DID (Say Infozech). Once the Infozech rep comes on-line, it calls the user number (from memory) and completes the Reverse billed CALLBACK call. This is like REVERSE billed CALLBACK!!! One could have very many uses for it. For instance instead of calling DELL or Microsoft and waiting 40 minutes on hold, one could call the DID NO; and then get a callback as soon as operator is free. The called party saves 40 minutes of long-distance charges and the calling party saves 40 minutes of waiting. I would like to hear from readers if this would work. Ankur Lal Infozech Software for Telecom Service Providers Tel: +91-11-6856452, Voicemail: +1-408-490-2842, Fax: +1-408-490-2840 email: ankur@infozech.com visit us at http://www.infozech.com<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:42:31 -0500 From: Cameron Barrett Subject: Being Fired for Personal Web Site Content Hi Pat and Gang: I'm sure that some of you by now have heard about my case, as it was first reported by the {New York Times} and then run in papers by the Associated Press last week. Here are the articles: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011298page.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/internet.firing.ap/index.html I'm opening this up for discussion on this list. Feel free to comment and/or send me your opinions about this. Thanks, a devoted TELECOM DIGEST reader for a long time. Cameron Barrett http://www.camworld.com ------------------------------ From: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: Bell Atlantic (in NYC) Yanking Flat Rate? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:38:18 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I'm in NYC, on an ISDN line, set up with a Bell Atlantic (nee NYNEX) flat rate billing plan. I opened my phone bill this month to find that my nice, low flat rate plan for local calling had been removed, causing my phone bill to go up by around $40. I called Bell Atlantic, and the unusually helpful representative I spoke to said that there was mention in my file of the service being removed, but none of the notation that's required when removing such a service. He immediately reinstated the service retroactive to when it was removed. I wrote it off as a minor error that has been fixed. Yesterday, I spoke to my boss. Apparently, exactly the same thing just happened to the bill for her POTS lines. This got me thinking ... if two people got their flat rate plans yanked, how many others did? Did anyone around here find their phone bill to be mysteriously higher this month? | Jeremy M. Posner | "I don't want parole, I'm too busy | | jposner@panix.com | working on my web site." -Charles Manson, 3/27/97 | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 02:12:47 -0500 From: Soon Y. Choi Subject: Reminder: CEME '98 A Short Reminder of an Upcoming Event: Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics (CEME '98) February 16-17, 1998 Austin, Texas 1998 is shaping to be the year of electronic commerce. How will electronic commerce affect you? Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics (CEME '98) will help you understand the effects of EC technologies and applications by evaluating their uses in the broader context of electronic markets and the digital economy. More information is available at http://cism.bus.utexas.edu/news/ceme98.html Co-sponsored by the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce at UT-Austin and IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce Soon Y. Choi, Ph.D. (soon@mail.utexas.edu) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~soon The Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, UT-Austin http://cism.bus.utexas.edu ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Usenet and the New Millenium Date: 19 Jan 1998 07:24:42 GMT Organization: Columbia University Researching the past toward envisioning the future of the Net Studying the history and impact of the ARPANET Mailing lists, Unix, Usenet The new millenium is less than two years away! The birth and development of Usenet, the Internet and of Unix are some of the wondrous developments that have been achieved to set the foundation for the start of the next millenium. To mark the new millenium it would be good to see the study of the history and impact of these important developments toward increased public discussion of how to build on them and spread access. Toward this end I welcome comments and discussion on some of the work that has thus far been done and on what future research and writing will be helpful. In the effort to go forward, it is important to have a vision of the future one is working toward, and the study of the past developments is one way to begin to document and discuss what the vision for the future of the Net should be. Following are some draft papers that I hope will be helpful: ARPANET Mailing Lists and Usenet Newsgroups Creating an Open and Scientific Process for Technology Development and Diffusion The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/msg.hist/ --------------- Early Usenet(1981-2) Creating the Broadsides for Our Day The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/usenet.hist/usenet_early_days.txt Usenet and the ARPANET Mailing Lists (1981-1982) The Emergence of the Modern Public Sphere A Habermasian Approach The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/usenet.hist/public_sphere_use.txt -------------- Also, there are some interviews I have done with unix pioneers and pointers to interviews done by others. And there are some articles about the history and impact of Unix. The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/unix.hist/ Comments are welcomed on any of this work, as are pointers to others doing similar work, or suggestions for collaboration and support for such work. In the early 1960's there was a conference at MIT where several computer pioneers were gathered to discuss the future of the computer. The organizers of the conference also invited C.P. Snow to open the conference and to present a broad perspective toward the discussion of what would and should be the future of the computer. C. P. Snow's talk described the importance of having many people involved in the discussion if it were to be fruitful. The creation and development of ARPANET mailing lists a few years later and eventually of Usenet and the Internet have made such broad ranging discussion not only possible but necessary. As the new millenium grows closer it is important to find a way to have this discussion of the vision for the future of the Net and of the impact it can have on the rest of society occur both online and to have such discussion available for those not yet online as well. ronda rh120@columbia.edu http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/ See also Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:12:02 EST Subject: Stupid Question of the Week Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Thanks to everyone who wrote with info about ISDN. I now know what I need. Being as it's Sunday, the beginning of a whole new week, I have a whole new dumb question: I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with the standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination slide-in stand and charger. The battery is only good for about two hours of standby, or 15 minutes on the phone (down from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I want to replace it with an NiMH battery. Question: Do I need a new charger, too? No one will give me a straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog (now THERE'S an authoritative source) sez "you MAY need a new charger..." (thanks lots), but none of the third-party catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different kind of charger ... Once again, slightly off-topic, so E-Mail welcomed. Bill ------------------------------ From: John J. Brassil Reply-To: John J. Brassil Subject: Connection Speeds Over 28.8k Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:29:15 -0600 (Central Standard Time) This seems to be the most knowledgeable group of folks about all things telephonic that I have seen gathered around a virtual cook fire, so perhaps one (or many) of you can answer a connection speed question for me. We have 6 Shiva Access switches at Vandy for dial-up that were upgraded last year to support 33.6k connections. Oh boy, I thought, an excuse to upgrade my external U.S. Robotics Sportster Vi to 33.6. Well, a long story later, I finally got the chip in my modem and prepared myself to enjoy 15% faster downloads. Hoo hoo! Now, I should say at this point that I had been getting a 28.8 connection about 70% of the time, the rest being 26.4, but never any lower than that. This has been several months ago and I have never gotten any connection faster than 28.8 in the intervening time. In fact, after a few days of not reaching the promised land, I suspected a bum chip or a bad local loop and brought my modem into work and hooked it up to an analog line here and tried a connection - 31.2 was the best I could get, but at least I verified that the chip and the Shiva were capable of 28.8+ speeds. This leads me to suspect the connection between the campus switch and the machine room where the modems live that is probably not that great. Fast forwarding to the near-present, we had a discussion Monday in our Campus Technology Forum (basically IT weenies from across campus, including a Telcomm rep) about how the modem pool was being upgraded again, so that 40% of the 288 (6x48) lines would now support 56Kflex and the rest would remain at 33.6 for the time being. Just for grins, I took a poll of the assemblage to see if *anyone* had ever gotten better than a 28.8 connection. Going once, going twice ... nope. [Since I'm reposting, I'll note here that since then someone has actually gotten 31.2 from home (about half the time) since I asked the question originally, proving that it is at least possible from off-campus.] Since Network Design & Engineering (my group) is soon to take over the modem pool, I'd like to hear some definitive guesses :) as to why this is so, and how usual or unusual it is in relation to the rest of the world, or North America, anyway. I mean, if 33.6 is a pipe dream, when someone asks me what kind of 56K gear to get, how loudly should I laugh? On the upside, ISDN is cheap in Tennessee, and we have @home cable modem service in Nashville now - neither at Vandy, though (yet.) Thanks, John J. Brassil | Network Engineer, Vanderbilt ACIS Networks | 615.322.2496 ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Subject: Sprint Asks For SSN Organization: That would be telling Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 06:52:46 GMT Friday I decided, what the hell, I'll get a cellphone and see how I like it. Who knows, after a month I may wonder how I ever lived without it. So I went into the Sprint salesroom (across the street from my office) ... and was promptly asked for my Social Pseudo Security Number for a credit check. "I don't like to give that out," I said. "Can't I pay a deposit instead?" "Even if you pay a deposit, we still need to do a credit check." Then he told me about the prepayment plan, which has fewer features and a much higher time rate. What's the point? "I'm not going to further compromise my privacy for a luxury," I said, and left. All very polite and civilized and understanding. But dammit, am I hallucinating when I think that previously when I ordered new phone service (about four times in the Eighties) I didn't go through this nonsense? Wasn't there a time in America when one could do business without baring one's soul at every turn? My ISP didn't ask for my SSN. My maildrop didn't ask for my SSN. Pac Bell Information Services (voicemail, see below) didn't ask for my SSN, at least I don't think it did. End rant. Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com "How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since they began in the early 1980's, cellular phone companies have always run credit checks, and set the amount of the required deposit accordingly. This was probably because their rates were so much higher than conventional phone service. If your monthly charges to some company are likely to be in the twenty, thirty or forty dollar range, doing a credit check when opening the account is of dubious value, since getting those credit reports costs money also. If your relationship is likely to lead to larger amounts of money -- and cellular phone service can tend to generate large bills -- then credit checks can be warranted. Some of the long distance carriers now do credit checks also, but it is not as common with local telcos. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #14 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 20 16:14:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA23601; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801202114.QAA23601@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #15 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 16:14:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service (Danny Burstein) 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade (Tad Cook) Nice New Bell Book (Jim Haynes) ID This Bizarre Terminal! (Xmal Havoc) ISDN Standards in South Africa (W.K. Williams) Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (D. Larry Martin) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Craig Macbride) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Nils Andersson) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (Darrell Hale) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:54:22 EST From: danny burstein Subject: Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on January 16, 1998 COMMISSIONER PRESENT: John F. O'Mara, Chairman CASE 98-C-0065 - Petition of New York Telephone Company for Immediate Approval of a Tariff Allowing the Provision of Emergency Telephone Facilities and Service Without Charge to Emergency Residential Shelters. ORDER APPROVING TEMPORARY TARIFF ALLOWING FREE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE (Issued and Effective January 16, 1998) On January 15, 1998, New York Telephone Company requested our approval pursuant to Section 91 of the Public Service Law, of an emergency temporary tariff and waiver of the notice requirements of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) and the Commission's rules so that free emergency telephone service may commence as soon as possible. The purpose of this tariff is to permit the company to provide free telephone service to emergency shelters where customers have been displaced from their homes and telephone service has been interrupted by the recent severe ice storm. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Due to the recent ice storm, residents in many upstate counties are without telephone and electric service and have been forced from their homes into emergency shelters. New York Telephone has requested authorization to provide free telephone facilities and service to the emergency residential shelters so that the health and well-being of New Yorkers temporarily residing at these shelters can be maintained and monitored. Section 91 of the Public Service Law prohibits a telephone corporation from giving any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation or locality. Therefore, under normal circumstances the proposed tariff providing free telephone service to a limited number of customers would be violative of the Public Service Law. In the instant situation, however, the Governor of the State of New York has declared a state of emergency in the affected upstate counties as a result of the damage to the electrical and telephone infrastructure from the recent ice storm. In addition, the state Emergency Management Office reports that over 17,000 people were in shelters. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to provide free telecommunications services to residential shelters providing emergency accommodations to New York State residents. The Commission also finds that the provision of free telephone service under these circumstances is in the public interest, and will approve the requested tariff for the duration of the emergency. The company also requests waiver of the notice provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act and of applicable publication requirements. As compliance with the procedural requirements would preclude the timely effectiveness of the emergency tariff provisions, the Commission finds that immediate approval of this tariff request is necessary for the preservation of the public health and safety, and compliance with the advance notice and comment requirements of Section 202.1 of SAPA would be contrary to the public interest. It is ordered: 1. New York Telephone Company's request for approval of an emergency tariff establishing a service classification for the free provision of telephone facilities and service to emergency residential shelters is granted. Such emergency tariff shall become effective on filing with the Commission. The approval of this tariff shall continue for the duration of the state of emergency in the affected counties. 2. The approval described in Clause 1 is effective as an emergency measure pursuant to Section 202.6 of the State Administrative Procedures Act. 3. The requirement of Section 92(2) of the Public Service Law as to newspaper publication is waived. 4. This proceeding is continued. _________________________ JOHN F. O'MARA Chairman-Commissioner ------------------------------ Subject: 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:54:20 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 100 Wisconsin Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated During Software Upgrade By Judy Newman , The Wisconsin State Journal Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 20--While the UW hockey team spent a triumphant weekend in Omaha, Neb., Coach Jeff Sauer tried to telephone an injured player in Madison. But his Ameritech calling card didn't let the call go through. Administrative assistant Rob Malnory wanted to check on other teams' scores and assistant coach Pat Ford attempted to phone home. But none of the calls on their Ameritech cards cleared, either. "I've had this card almost since I've been here -- about 13 years," Sauer said. "It was unique; We all tried to make some calls and it just didn't work." They weren't alone. About 100 Ameritech calling card holders from the Madison area couldn't get their calls through, thanks to what Ameritech spokesman Bill Pendergast in Hoffman Estates, Ill. calls "one of the more unusual problems we've encountered." A switch that handles calling card calls into the 608 area code was programmed incorrectly last Thursday night, Pendergast said, deactivating the numbers. It resulted when the software was revised, possibly to change billing codes or to route calls more quickly. "It's one of those random things that happens," he said. The cards should be back in service some time today, Pendergast said. ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:28:04 -0800 Subject: Nice New Bell Book "Alexander Graham Bell - the Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone" by Edwin S. Grosvenor and Morgan Wesson, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., www.abramsbooks.com, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1. A biography of A. G. Bell with pictures on nearly every page: Bell and his family, early telephone equipment and offices, early telephone advertisements, other things Bell experimented with. Highly recommended. ------------------------------ From: xmalh@merv.martnet.com (Xmal Havoc) Subject: ID This Bizarre Terminal! Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:50:21 GMT Organization: MartNet Communications Hello All: I thought perhaps someone in this newsgroup could help me id a telephony-based terminal for me: I managed to get me hands on something which I would very much like some information on, if anyone is familiar with it (particularly pinouts for the ports). What it is, is this: It appears to be some sort of Telephone Operator's terminal, circa 1984. I'm not sure if the unit was used strictly by the telephone companies, or by any company which needed such a thing for their mailorder department or something like that. Anyway, the terminal is beige and dark brown, with AT&T's insignia on the upper left corner of the unit. It's approx. 17" deep x 7" tall x 11" wide. The keyboard is reminiscent of and old 286 laptop keyboard (which is self contained, BTW). Above the main keyboard is a rubber membrane keypad with digits, explicitly for dialing telephone numbers. To the right of the numbers are more rubber keys such as Redial, Recall, CMD, Mail, Redraw, and Lcl Dir. The screen on this self-contained unit is an 8"x3.5" monochrome (amber) display, around which are more (unlabeled) rubber membrane keys. These keys obviously correspond to whatever data is on the screen (i.e. Next to each button there is probably a menu option on the screen). On the left-hand side of the unit is a telephony handset which rests on its plastic arm. Ports: Next to the handset is a jack *similar* to an RJ45, but it's *not*. It's an 8-connector jack, too small for an RJ45 connector, too big for an RJ11. I've never seen these before. On the bottom of the terminal, there's an AC jack, a port that appears to be Centronics, and a 15-pin port (female), which I'm thinking might be an AUI (network) port. The sticker on the bottom gives the following info: Teletype Corporation Model: 5430 Code: 5430 CAA Serial: Now, the PROMware: When you turn the terminal on it says: Copyright AT&T Teletype Corporation 1984 Software Version 1.4 ... And on the bottom of the screen there's: HOLD LINE1 LINE2 LINE3 LOCAL SIGNAL ... which correspond to some of those rubber membrane keys I was talking about. If you hold down SHIFT while pressing the LclDir key, you get the setup mode, which allows you to change options such as the brightness, contrast, ringer volume, buzzer volume, terminal mode (local/line), baud rate, parity, flow control, Aux. baud rate, backspace and break key codes, etc. This thing is really, really neat. Oh yeah, and one more thing ... Hitting the LclDir button alone brings up a LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY mode, where you can add/edit/delete phone numbers stored inside the terminal. Any stored phone numbers are displayed along side the rubber membrane keys to the right and left of the display, so that if you were to hit the corresponding key, it would suppossedly dial that number for you. Now, what I'm trying to find out is information regarding the pinouts of the ports on the side and bottom (obviously). If anyone knows *anything* about these (or similiar) units, even if you've seen them in use before and can tell me where, I would be *extremely* grateful. Thanks very very much in advance! Xmal Havoc 215-4T xmalh@martnet.com ------------------------------ From: warren.williams@worldafrican.com (W.K. Williams) Subject: ISDN Standards in South Africa Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:10:01 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have some co-workers in South Africa who are telling me they have ISDN service over there. My question is, is ISDN in South Africa compatible with ISDN in the US? Can I dial their number from my ISDN line in the US and get a digital connection at 64/128Kb? Warren Williams ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up Date: 18 Jan 1998 03:39:48 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates I propose to comment at a public hearing to be held by the Florida Public Service Commission, in favor of an overlay as proposed by GTE, and in opposition to another split, as proposed by subscribers in a workshop last week. Unfortunately, having just lost a major client, _and_ having been in a car accident last week, I'm not in much shape to research my arguments coherently. Would those of you who are proponents of overlays, either for technical or economic reasons, be so kind as to take a moment and drop me a note with commentary or pointers to why overlays are better. I _know_ the primary arguments, I just need some backup. And some ibuprofen. I know I'm asking y'all to do my homework for me, it's a favor I appreciate. I'll summarize my presentation to the Digest. 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: nospam.damos@cyberramp.net (D. Larry Martin) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:05:21 GMT Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333 On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT, mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker THIS.com> wrote: >> I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI >> today. >> A notation on the bill offers this explanation: >> The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to >> pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines >> subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long >> distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to >> each usage customer." >> But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged >> based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to >> MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this >> fee? > Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for > your non PICed line. (MCI should not.) > I think what is going on is a lowering of the LEC's skim off of the > long distance charges (IXCs pay more to the LECs to originate and > terminate a call than it costs them to carry it across the country.) > Since this was a local service subsidy (or so they say) it is being > replaced with per user charges. The government doesn't get any of it. > The LEC pockets the whole wad. Actually, access charges were designed to recover a portion of the costs associated with providing local service. It is true that IXC's pay a significant amount of money to LECs to originate and terminate calls. The cost of providing local service is incredibly expensive. IXC's can run high capacity circuits to each of their POPs. Consider that your local telephone company ran a pair of wires to each and every home on your block, in your neighborhood, in your city. The cost to put that plant into service and maintain it is significantly more expensive than running high caps across the country. Now, that said, a large part of Carrier Common Line access charges are a subsidy paid for by the IXC's (and ultimately the end user.) If the true cost to provide local service was charged directly to the end user, the cost would result in a significant number of people not being able to afford service. Since the FCC also has an interest in providing "universal service", they can't (or won't) mandate an increase in base telephone charges. They accomplished this by leaving the primary residential and single line business Subscriber Line Charge exactly the same as it has been. BTW, as a side note, the per minute of use Carrier Common Line charges were reduced by an equivalent amount as will be recovered from the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC). The LEC is not making out like a bandit as your post implies. D. Larry Martin ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: 19 Jan 1998 12:45:53 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. David Schuetz writes: > Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said > that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me > that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she > thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. Quite a while. Over a year ago, they wouldn't accept Visa cards. So, I used a MasterCard instead. > * Why the heck would they want to do this? Seems pretty stupid to me > (they lost my business). They told me over a year ago that Visa wouldn't authorise them to do it at all, probably because the risk of fraud is _enormous_! Their system is automated, yet doesn't require a PIN to be entered. This is totally absurd. > * Can they even do this? I thought Visa was Visa ("It's everywhere you > want to be"). If a retail outlet puts a visa logo in their window, don't > they have to take *ALL* Visa cards? (provided they're legit/current/etc.) If AT&T chooses to accept its own Visa card, do the processing themselves, and take the risks of fraud themselves, instead of sharing it with the Visa organisation, I suspect they can. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a merchant takes some VISA cards, he > has to take all VISA cards (assuming sales authorization approval, > etc). This sounds to me like a continuation of the redlining AT&T does > with regards credit cards (and its own calling card) from payphones in > 'bad' neighborhoods in inner-city areas. Wow! That might explain something I had long wondered about. A couple of times, my MasterCard didn't work on AT&T's system either, despite having worked in other locations. I just assumed their system was wonky, but maybe it was deliberate discrimination. Scary. And a stupid way for them to lose business. > telco calling card to call any nice, English-speaking country in the > world, i.e. Australia, the UK, etc. Why, thank you for noticing us. :-) However, I would point out that AT&T's rates to call here are mind-bogglingly high. To call here through AT&T, last time I checked, cost about three times what it costs me to call Australia from the US and have the call billed to my home account, which, in turn is about three times the charge that is possible through some low-cost companies! And that's the standard rate, before the credit card charges!! > [ to less "nice" places ] You have to use a private phone to call those > countries so that there can be some absolute recourse for billing > and collection. Of course, if they were using a PIN on credit cards (yes, I realise this is the US banks' faults, not AT&T's) and checking the availability of funds, there should be no question of the caller being able to pay! By the way, do you wonder why I was using AT&T at all? I tried to recharge an MCI calling card which said on the back that it could be recharged by calling a particular number. When I called, I was told that those particular cards couldn't be recharged! Sprint allows credit-card calls from some hotels. (I've done it.) However, they don't allow it from general phones, or from other hotels. Also, their operators and their supervisors will deny that it happens anywhere at all!! (Of course, if that were true, I'd like the money back that appeared on my credit card statement marked "Sprint 012M ...", because they really don't charge calls to credit cards, do they?) Is their a single long-distance carrier in the USA that isn't totally incompetent, doesn't lie, and doesn't constantly to go way out of its way to refuse to let you give it money? ... Or even one out of three?! Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm Carla: "Yes, Captain, destiny is calling." Kremmen: "Tell them I'll call them back." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint has gotten sued many times for the way they deal with calling card calls, i.e. denying service in an arbitrary way based on their notions about where fraud is likely to occur, etc. Like AT&T, they don't care; suits mean nothing, there are so many of them against the telcos at any given time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:32:45 -0500 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to David Schuetz : > It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm > to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high > fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have > been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been > an operator acting ignorant. > The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the > customer about it. The operator is NEVER to say there is a strong > possibility you are making a fraud call. She is NEVER to say 'there is > problem with calls from your ethnic neighborhood in Chicago to > (whatever) country and AT&T has a hard time collecting payment.' > Saying those things could easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit, > etc. So instead, the operator has a few lies she is instructed to say, > which ninety percent of the time or so will shag away the customer > with no further ado. The three most common are: > 1) The AT&T calling card is not accepted in (whatever) country. > 2) The authorization system (to get approval for the charge) is down > right now; no way to handle the call. > 3) AT&T does not accept that particular type of VISA/MC/Amex. > If you answer back to (1) saying this is a SENT PAID call and the > method of payment is of no concern to the foreign telco, sometimes the > operator will 'accidentally' hit the release key and dump your > call. Other times she may very haughtily refer you to a supervisor > who you spend ten minutes waiting on hold for if she answers at all. > If you answer (2) saying the initial charge for the call is under the > 'floor limit' and that normally all that happens at first is > verifying the check-digit, with approval obtained ONLY after the call > reaches a certain dollar-amount, you'll probably get the same > response as (1). This raises an old but interesting issue. Various companies have a de facto points system, where various factors such as location are added in, and often an actual data base of past problems, so they can update their points system data base. This can be used to set a higher/lower price to some customers (car/life/health insurers do this), or to refuse business from some customers, or to scrutinize some customers. (Try arriving in a sweat late for a flight, buying a ticket on the spot, even paying cash. I have done this. It gets them worried - and I have WASP appearance and a faint Swedish/British accent!). The general situation seems to be that this is usually legal, using location etc. (even if it correlates strongly with national origin), unless you are a bank, whereas ACTUALLY using national origin etc. is not legal, even if it demonstrably correlates to problem situations, is illegal. (This does not always stick it to the poor, far from it. Try buying car insurance in Beverly Hills. The average fender bender -- even if your car is cheap -- costs big bucks, and your rate will reflect that!) In fact, sometimes it is even REQUIRED BY LAW, such as when local authorities insist that some pay phones block incoming calls or refuse coin calls. Now, all of the above is descriptive of what the legal situation IS. People will vary widely in what they think it SHOULD BE. I will try NOT to participate in any such debate, there is no consensus anyway. Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Darrell Hale Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:46:04 -0800 Organization: Texas Networking, Inc. Reply-To: dehale@texas.net I find it interesting that ATT is buying a company that uses elements that are non Lucent such as DEX 600's of ACC and U.S. Wats and I believe that TCG has DMS-500s. Just thought that represents a big change in the ATT attitude towards flexibility at least from an operations side. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #15 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 20 19:09:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA06902; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:09:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:09:35 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801210009.TAA06902@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #16 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 19:08:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: The Internet and the School Library Media Specialist (R Slade) Problem mit Telefon Euroset 811 von Siemens (J. Rossmann) Conference on Computers, Freedom, & Privacy 1998 (Monty Solomon) How Big is the Internet Today? (Anthony Argyriou) The Barrage Against Microsoft Appears to be Taking Its Toll (Tad Cook) What was SS6, SS5, etc etc... (Nathan Duehr) Meridian SL1 PBX System - FOR SALE (RWGreenwalt) Sony 900MHz DSS Phone (Alistair Lambie) New Book on Telecommunications (Jud Wolfskill) Re: Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers (D. Larry Martin) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (John R. Levine) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (T. S. Chomicz) Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:49:37 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The Internet and the School Library Media Specialist" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINSLMS.RVW 970911 "The Internet and the School Library Media Specialist", Randall M. MacDonald, 1997, 0-313-30028-3, U$39.95 %A Randall M. MacDonald macdonr@mail.firn.edu %C 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881-5007 %D 1997 %G 0-313-30028-3 %I Greenwood Press %O U$39.95 203-226-3571 fax: 203-222-1502 http://www.greenwood.com %P 208 %T "The Internet and the School Library Media Specialist" As MacDonald points out, school library and media specialists have both a tremendous need for Internet applications, and a great responsibility for provision of internet services to colleagues and students. I also strongly agree that "[e]ffective planning for Internet services in the media centre first requires an awareness of the `big picture'" (p.115). Which is why this book is so very disappointing. School media specialists uniquely need an informed and practical guide to the investigation and use of a rapidly evolving resource. What they get is a somewhat disorganized, extremely brief, technically suspect, and generally mundane introduction to the net. School librarians do have special needs in respect of the Internet. By and large, though, this work only tangentially touches on those needs. Examples, case study stories, and Web site lists may refer to education, but deeper fundamentals are not given. Librarians, used to indices, cataloguing, and formal classification systems, will likely find that the free form searching tools of the net and Web require new extensions of their existing skills. Yet the closest the author comes to mentioning this is a reference to those students who give up too quickly when conducting a lookup in the computerized "card" catalogue. Management of net access can be both time-consuming and prohibitive to those students who most need the availability, but the book seems to be much more concerned with avoiding pornography. An example unit plan (the only one) uses the net only twice (rather trivially), in five lessons, and would require extensive practice and reworking by the teacher before it could be used in an actual classroom. The book does touch on a range of topics that are of interest to librarians, but the operative word is "touch". Most topics provide little more than an introduction, and would be of no practical use. The "selected" bibliography is of scant help, here. Of the literally hundreds of decent books that could have been cited, few are. The list is padded with magazine articles and private email. (I was intrigued to note that the pre-eminent journal, "The Computing Teacher", is *not* mentioned in the list of periodicals, even though a single article does get into the references.) Of the four Internet guides that I most frequently recommend, none are mentioned, of the next few dozen on the list, only one author gets included, and that is for a lesser work. In some, few, specific cases, there is a detailed and correct "recipe" for a specific activity. In most cases, however, the material, if not actually in error, demonstrates only the most rudimentary grasp of an application, and no real understanding of the reality of the Internet and its related technologies. While I applaud the intent of this book, the execution leaves much to be desired. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINSLMS.RVW 970911 ------------------------------ From: J. Rossmann Subject: Problem mit Telefon Euroset 811 von Siemens Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:15:27 +0000 Organization: University of Dortmund, Germany [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will someone please read the note which follows, translate it, and deal with it for me. Thanks. PAT] Habe auf dem Trvdel ein nicht mehr funktionsfdhiges Siemens Euroset 811 erstanden. Der Fehler war durch das Reinigen der Kontakte am Kontaktschalter des Hvrers schnell behoben. Allerding habe ich keine Bedienungsanleitung mitbekommen und frage mich jetzt, wer mir sagen kann, was man mit der Taste "Tonruf" und der Taste die mit "M" |berschrieben und mit "Ziel" unterschrieben ist, anfangen kann. Gibts vielleicht sogar die vollstdndige Bedienungsanleitung im Netz? F|r jede Hilfe bin ich dankbar - J|rgen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:27:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Conference on Computers, Freedom, & Privacy 1998 Begin forwarded message: Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:32:06 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" Subject: Conference on Computers, Freedom, & Privacy 1998 The Eighth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy - CFP98 It's been called a lot of things over the years, but it still remains the one place where anyone, who is anyone, goes to immerse themselves in the issues surrounding the health and viability of the Internet. Dubbed the "Woodstock of online activism" by veteran attendee Simona Nass, it has been the nexus of discussions of online privacy, free speech, and human rights. If you work for a company in today's economy, these issues have relevance to you. For three days, you can learn about the pressing, cutting-edge issues that are developing today and will affect your future. CFP is an intimate setting with the conference lasting throughout the entire time you're not sleeping. With only a few hundred attendees every years, the conference becomes more of a retreat where law enforcement agents socialize with hackers. Last year saw advocates on both sides of the Internet free speech debate socializing with each other during one of the many spontaneous after-hours parties in the hotel. Below you'll find stories from several members of our community who continue to support and attend CFP. We hope to see you there! This year promises to be just as much fun, with the panels touching on lots of great topics, including privacy implications of biometrics, the Internet in schools, the sale of government records, cryptography, medical records privacy, link licenses, universal access, and library filtering. In addition, there will be a moot court about suing spammers, and a mock wiretap. You can't afford to miss it! To register, simply go to the website at http://www.cfp98.org/ Also, the program is there, and you can check out the issues that will be under discussion! Sincerely, /s/ Shabbir J. Safdar *** Stories from CFP veterans *** Todd Lappin, Editor, Wired Magazine While the panels at CFP '97 were very useful, the most worthwhile part of the conference took place outside the meeting room -- and in the hot tub. Each night during CFP 97, the hot tub at the Burlingame Hyatt became a gathering place for cyberliberties advocates of all stripes -- from authors Paulina Borsook and Ellen Ullman to Joseph Reagle from W3C and Jon Lebkowsky from EF-Austin. The water was hot, the conversation was intense, but the atmosphere was relaxed. A. Michael Froomkin, Associate Professor of Law CFP has great speakers. It has even better audience. The audience congregates in the hallway; this makes for agonizing choices -- do you go see that great debate in the ballroom, or say out here and pick up stuff you would never hear anywhere else. I've tried it both ways, and still can't make up my mind. It's my one "won't miss" conference of the year. Jon Lebkowsky, EF-Austin My favorite story is from CFP '93, when an FBI agent pretending to be a PC Week reporter asked Emmanuel Goldstein and I our opinion of the FBI presentation. CFP '93 was a great one for me...so much was coming together that year. It was the social aspect that I found most stimulating, the conference in the hallways. That was the year that I interviewed Phil Zimmermann and Tom Jennings...interviews that are still alive online. Diana Jarvis, Counsel for VTW Center for Internet Education Aside from the fact that CFP collects together the most wonderful and interesting people I've ever met (and aside from the fact that the gagetry on display is better than Comdex) and great thing about CFP is the way in which the conference cuts through the hype. Take Information War -- only at CFP did I hear people seriously and intelligently criticize the military's hype about how the terrorists of the future will disable our industrial infrastruture by pointing out that networks, powerlines, broadcast communications etc. are much more robust and redundant than they were in the 50's, 60's, and 70's and that those eras saw the multi-hour blackouts, network outages during broadcast, etc. Everyone else merely dutifully reports that our military tells us we must be prepared for this great threat they've dreamed up to stop cutting military budgets. Shabbir J. Safdar, Voters Telecommunications Watch I remember first being introduced to the debate over "Who Owns The Law?", about the issue of the ownership of legal decisions. Currently, West Publishing holds the copyright on most of them, and there aren't really any public domains sources for them. The moderator introduced the panel, which included advocates from both sides, and then stepped out of the way. I never realized debate was a full contact sport. About 45 minutes and a whole lot of screaming later, it suddenly hit me that I had just had the perfect crash course in the topic, and had gotten it from both sides. I'd been able to watch advocates poke holes in each others' arguments, then rebut them. Afterwards at one of the room parties that night, I was able to sit and talk to one of the advocates at length. That sort of intimacy is what makes CFP great for me, and I'll continue to return every year for it. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: How Big is the Internet Today? Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:15:58 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Following a thread from an irreverent e-mail list story, I discovered that Bellcore has a website which tracks the size of the Internet. They're using statistical sampling of the DNS to estimate the number of internet hosts. The estimate as I write is 30,096,400 and growing. The site is http://www.netsizer.com , and you need a Java-enabled browser to see it. Information about the estimate is at http://www.netsizer.com/info.html . Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ Subject: The Barrage Against Microsoft appears to be taking its toll Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:27:13 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (Excerpt of an article from the {NY Times}) The barrage against Microsoft appears to be taking its toll By Timothy Egan New York Times Under siege REDMOND, Wash. -- On the campus where food is strictly fuel for another lap around the digital track and a mere eight-hour day is considered slacking off, the Microsoft corporate flag flies as high as ever in a wintry gale. Surrender is not an option. But there is a clear sense, both inside Microsoft and in the region that takes such pride in having spawned a company where perhaps 1 in 5 employees are millionaires, that the world's most powerful software corporation has lost some of its swagger. Employees arrive at work after hearing themselves compared to a tobacco company or a 19th-century trust on the evening news. Many say they are tired of having their integrity questioned every day by the Justice Department, software rivals or neighbors. The computer screen is no escape. More than 100 Web sites devoted to Microsoft hatred cast the company as the Evil Empire and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates as the devil, or much worse. The ever-flashing stock price, a carrot for tough days, has been stagnant for months and is currently down 10 percent from its 52-week high, closing Friday at $135.25, well behind the breakneck growth that inspired dreams of working five years and then retiring for life. "What a lot of people are feeling now is this huge backlash," said Rick Segal, a former department head who left Microsoft last year. "A lot of my friends in the company are wondering if it's all worth it. I mean, how did Microsoft become more hated than the government?" Prospective employees still flock to Microsoft, a company consistently rated among the most admired in America. Its products have many supporters. And its operating system is still used in more than 85 percent of personal computers worldwide. But the long antitrust fight with the Justice Department, highlighted most recently by an embarrassing series of legal and public relations setbacks, has taken its toll. Microsoft has always had passionate enemies within the computer software industry, critics who say the company is predatory and ruthless in crushing all rivals. With the recent legal clash, Microsoft has come under fire from the secular world as well, as people in Redmond sometimes refer to the non-digital. "A few months ago, everyone I met seemed to think that working for Microsoft was a pretty cool thing to do," columnist Jacob Weisberg wrote in a recent posting of Slate, Microsoft's online magazine of public affairs. "Now strangers treat us like we work for Philip Morris." The courtroom tactics, blunders and air of defiance have provided much more than drinking-fountain fodder in the Seattle area, where the enormous wealth created by Microsoft has transformed the region. Of course, there are plenty of Microsoft critics within the Redmond area code as well. But, with charities, museums, home prices and the regional niche in popular culture tied to the software giant, hometown bias prevails. There is considerable concern that the ride may be over. "I went to a dinner party recently with a lot of Seattle people, none of whom worked at Microsoft, but what was so striking was how totally loyal they were to Microsoft," said Michael Kinsley, Slate's editor. "They all felt that there was an effort by the government to get the company." Microsoft has long felt like it is under siege because it is so dominant in the software world, and has produced so much wealth, company officials say. But what has changed of late is that some of the envy, criticism and concern are now coming from loyal customers; more than anything that has caused some quaking at Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, where more than 12,000 people work for the company. Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's second in command, the executive vice president long known for his scorched-earth attitude toward critics and competitors, last week presented a newly humble corporate face. He said e-mail and focus groups conducted by Microsoft indicated that people with no axes to grind were angry at the company. Gone, for the moment, are fire-breathing comments like the one Ballmer made last year about the Justice Department, when he said, "To heck with Janet Reno," the attorney general. The company has gone so far as to issue an apology, with Robert Herbold, the chief operating officer, saying, "We're sorry if we have made any statements that would suggest we do anything but respect" the Justice Department. It is a long way from remarks just a few weeks earlier, in which Microsoft said Justice Department lawyers were "totally uninformed" about how software works. They also said they could package anything, "even a ham sandwich" with their operating system if they wanted to. The change in tactics shows that many Microsoft officials realize suddenly that the company may be in serious trouble, and -- in their worst-case fear -- could even be broken apart by the Justice Department. "It's always been part of the corporate culture there to write the strongest e-mail, to scream the loudest," said Posy Gering, a Seattle computer consultant. "They love having an enemy. But now, enough people are telling them they haven't got a clue what they're up against." Microsoft's insularity, its focus on hiring stereotypical nerds without an outside life, is what has come back to haunt it, some people here say. "Microsoft has never put any effort into figuring out how to schmooze with people," said Tina Podlodowski, a Seattle City Council member, who left Microsoft in 1992, after six years at the company. "They simply don't understand why people don't see things the way they see things. So I guess they're suffering now for being intellectually arrogant and socially inept." ---------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you I do not recall a single item in this Digest in several years -- if ever -- which brought such a HUGE response in the mail as did the comments I made about Microsoft a week or so ago. There were about six hundred pieces of mail on that subject and they are still coming in. Normally I do not devote an entire issue to any topic -- let alone three or four entire issues in a short period of time -- but the replies in the MS thread so over- whelmed my mailbox I thought the only way to show all of you the intensity and volume of replies was by sending a large number of them out to you. And it is not done yet! I am going to put out still one more issue, either tonight or tomorrow totally devoted to responses, and like the others it will be a full, very large issue. If the mail contiues to pour in on the topic, I could see possibly still another issue after that, later this week, but it has to stop somewhere. I really feel bad when so many people write me, and really put some effort into their response, only to pass it to the bit bucket unused, but that is what will unfortunatly happen with the several hundred MS replies which will still be left over even if I devoted every issue this week to nothing but MS ... really, I was shocked at the huge volume of mail; and that is despite the fact that several dozen articles intended for publication arrive in my box daily. Some days there is almost as much material for use in the Digest as there is spam. PAT ------------------------------ From: Nathan Duehr Subject: What was SS6, SS5, etc etc... Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:42 -0700 Organization: ConferTech International I've got a nagging question. If we have Signalling System 7, what were SS6, SS5, SS4, etc? Were there ever such standards? Were they just inband T1 signalling in some cases, or what? I'm just a young'un, so someone fill me in! Nathan N. Duehr Software Engineer, Frontier ConferTech (800) 525-8244 x3444 ------------------------------ From: RWGreenwalt@juno.com Subject: Meridian SL1 PBX System - FOR SALE Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:10:09 GMT Organization: TAB / Answer Network Full system - Includes manuals and documentation. Contact me for details. ------------------------------ From: Alistair Lambie Subject: Sony 900MHz DSS Phone Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:39:04 +1200 Organization: CLEAR Net, http://www.clear.net.nz/ Reply-To: alambie@clear.net.nz Hi, I recently bought a Sony SPP-SS950 900Mhz DSS cordless phone on a trip to the US. It works great some of the time, but other times it appears to channel hop a lot, which injects little dropouts into the conversation ... most annoying. As I live in New Zealand it is not real easy to take it back (although I am sure I can get it back before any warranty runs out!), so I am wondering whether this is really a problem with the unit or not. Here are the possibilities I see: 1. The phone is faulty. 2. There is something else that is messing up the band (I thought the band was ok in New Zealand, but ...) 3. There is some real bad interference in my neighbourhood. 4. This model is fundamentally flawed! Does anyone have any ideas about how I could further diagnose things? Thanks, Alistair fn: Alistair Lambie n: Lambie;Alistair adr: 5 The Quarterdeck;;Whitby;Wellington;;;New Zealand email;internet: alambie@clear.net.nz tel;work: +64-4-802 1455 tel;home: +64-4-234 7136 ------------------------------ From: Jud Wolfskill Subject: New Book on Telecommunications Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:23:08 +0000 Organization: MIT Press Reply-To: wolfskil@mit.edu The following is a book which readers of this list might find of interest. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/promotions/books/SCH2CHF97 Coordinating Technology Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications Susanne K. Schmidt and Raymund Werle Few modern technologies are designed to stand alone. Because most machines must now fit into systems and be compatible with other technologies, the creation of standards has become a fundamental element of design and engineering. Conflicts such as the 3color television war2 of the 1970s and recent disputes over high-definition television (HDTV) highlight the complexities of the standard-setting process. Susanne Schmidt and Raymund Werle present three case studies from the telecommunications industry to highlight the actors, the process, the politics, and the influence exerted by international organizations in the construction of standards. The case studies include the standards for facsimile terminals and transmission, videotex (a service that, with the exception of the French Minitel service, largely failed), and for electronic mail. The authors follow each trail from the realization by certain actors of the need for a standard, through the complex negotiation processes involving many economic, political, and social interests, to the final agreement on a standard. Throughout their stories, they emphasize the institutional embeddedness of these processes, demonstrating the value of an institutionalist approach to technology studies. Inside Technology series January 1998 324 pp. ISBN 0-262-19393-0 MIT Press * 5 Cambridge Center * Cambridge, MA 02142 * (617)625-8569 ------------------------------ From: nospam.damos@cyberramp.net (D. Larry Martin) Subject: Re: Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:43:05 GMT Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333 Per the FCC Access Reform Order, the cap for a primary residential line is $0.53. The cap for a non-primary residential line is $1.50 and the cap for a multi line business line is $2.75. This charge has come to be known as the PICC (Pre subscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge). What bugs me about these carriers passing this charge through is that this is NOT a new charge being assessed to IXC's that they've never paid before. The charge is a new method of recovering the costs of the common line. To that degree, the minute of used based Carrier Common Line Access charges have been reduced. All in all, the cost to the IXC's has decreased as a result of the Access Reform order. Does everyone remember the IXC ads on TV when congress was hammering out the Telecommunications Act saying they would pass on the savings "directly" to the customer. Hmmmm, I wonder where those savings went? D. Larry Martin Remove the "nospam." to reply directly to me via e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1998 02:52:21 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. I recall reading somewhere that Visa is trying to start their own Visa phone card system which got them into a fight with telcos including AT&T, with the result that AT&T does indeed take every kind of plastic on the planet other than Visa. It's not red-lining -- they really reject all sorts of Visa cards. I hadn't heard that they'd resumed accepting their own branded Via (which as it happens, they're in the process of selling), and it surprises me. Visa certainly has rules that merchants are supposed to accept all Visa cards if they accept any of them. On the other hand, AT&T seems to be uniquely good at thumbing their nose at the telemarketing do-not-call rules*, so this would be right up their alley. * - I had a supervisor at an AT&T phone spam center explain to me the' other day that AT&T uses lots of call centers, and although each keeps has their own do-not-call list, they don't exchange lists. Sounds just like those "this is a one time message" spams, huh? John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: tomc@marconi.ih.lucent.com (T. S. Chomicz) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: 20 Jan 1998 00:15:40 GMT In article , David Schuetz wrote: > After arriving late in a hotel last night, I tried calling home but > had forgotten my MCI calling card. So, I tried the hotel's AT&T > Credit Card option. > I punched in my "Major" credit card number (Citibank Visa), only to get a > couple "invalid card number" errors and eventually an operator. I read > her my number aloud, and she told me that they wouldn't take that visa > card. Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said > that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me > that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she > thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. I told her that if AT&T > didn't want my money, that was fine with me, and made the call a different > way. [snip] > [Moderator's note: [snip] > It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm > to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high > fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have > been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been > an operator acting ignorant. > The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the > customer about it. >[continues to discuss a possible connection to discrimination > against people from certain countries] Before you go off the deep end on this... AT&T accepts MC, DC, AX, their own cards, and most LEC cards. They do not accept VISA, regardless of your ethnic origin. Probably what the operator was confused about was that if you have an AT&T Universal VISA, you can use the calling card number printed on the bottom of the card, but not the main VISA number itself. Next time you are at the airport, look at the big signs advertising "1-800-CALL-ATT." They show a picture of an MC, DC, AX, and AT&T card, but no VISA. If you ever fly on American Airlines, check the instructions for the AT&T air to ground phones, VISA is not listed among the acceptable credit cards. This should be indicative of the fact that they do not pick and choose based on your place of national origin when deciding whether to accept VISA. I understand they do this because of some operational restrictions that VISA USA places on telecommunications companies. I do not know the exact details. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While what you say about the inability to use VISA is correct (there were no references to VISA on the signs at Ohare Airport advertising AT&T) it is also true that AT&T does not even honor its own calling card under the circumstances I noted earlier. If they do not like the country you are calling and/or the inner-city neighborhood you are calling from, then they will not allow you to use their card from a payphone to call that country. Since it is unlikely that someone would go to a payphone in Wilmette, Illinois to place a calling card call to India, but much more likely that a native of India would use the payphones outside the 7/Eleven store on Devon Avenue in Chicago for such a call, it amounts to defacto discrim- ination against people from that country who wish to make telephone calls to their homeland and pay later 'on credit'. Calls to Puerto Rico -- a part of the United States! -- are allowed via payphone and calling card from the north suburbs of Chicago, but the last time I checked, the same type of call was not allowed from payhones serviced by the Chicago-Humboldt and Chicago-Kedzie central offices; both in almost exclusively minority -- black and Latino -- neighborhoods. AT&T says they don't discriminate with credit-granting; that Latino people passing through Wilmette are welcome to stop at a payphone and call Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Panama, etc. I say 'passing through' because no such person lives in that community. Likewise, said the AT&T rep I spoke with, if a white lady goes up to the payphone outside the liquor store on North Avenue near Pulaski Road they would not allow her to place a calling card call either. So you see, no discrimination against individual people of various nationalities, just a block on calling cards as payment when the origin and/or destination of the call has a fraudulent history. You can discriminate against telephones and their locations all you like; but not against the people who use them. And that, as 'they' say, is that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:00:00 EST Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' If you get a chance, listen to the message before it gets changed, and post your thoughts here. Remember that 800-647-NEWS is intended for *internal* use by BA employees, and is not an official media source for news from the company. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #16 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 22 18:42:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA06401; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:42:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:42:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801222342.SAA06401@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #17 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Jan 98 18:42:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Colorado PUC: Limit 720 Overlay to Pagers and Mobile Phones? (Don Heiberg) Book Review: "A World's Fair for the Global Village (Rob Slade) Americans Gain Right to Delete Icons (Eric Ewanco) How Do They Know It's A Pay Phone? (Greg Monti) UCLA Short Course on "Interference Analysis and Mitigation" (Bill Goodin) Lucent or Not? (was Re: Teleport / AT&T Merger) (Mark J. Cuccia) Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Thomas J. Huot) AOL Accuses Navy of Tricking it to Get Data (Tad Cook) Japanese Primary Rate ISDN Standards (Christian Beckmann) New Publication For World Wide Web and Internet Research (Argi Krikelis) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Colorado PUC: Limit 720 Overlay to Pagers and Mobile Phones? Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:21:06 -0700 Rocky Mountain News, January 22, 1998, http://insidedenver.com/yourmoney/0122code1.html 720 area code on hold Regulators signal new bid to limit overlay on 303 territory to pagers and mobile phones By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer Even though an ad campaign has been launched to prepare metro Denver residents for a new area code, state regulators Wednesday decided they aren't finished debating the issue. The three members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission informally agreed to reopen the area code docket, the huge record of their deliberations and decision. While insisting they're not reneging on plans to overlay new area code 720 on the 303 territory, commissioners said they want to consider modifications. The commissioners expressed interest in further study of a new overlay only for mobile phones and pagers. During months of discussion last year, the commission considered and rejected the idea of giving the new area code only to mobile phones and pagers because the Federal Communications Commission had ruled that was discriminatory. PUC engineer Bruce Armstrong said mobile phone numbers are being issued at a faster rate than other numbers. In the 303 area code, wire-line phones are growing at 6.3 percent a year, compared with 34 percent for cellular and PCS phones, and 9 percent for pagers. "Cellular is perceived differently,'' said commission Chairman Robert Hix. "It might be good for people to know if they dial 720, it's wireless." Hix urged moving on reopening the docket "with the likely outcome of a different course of action." Commissioners are unhappy that little has been done by the telecommu- nications industry to free up some of the 3.2 million 303 numbers that are not in use. Mary Ireland is a spokeswoman for AT&T Wireless and a member of the industry public education committee charged with preparing the public for the new area code. On both counts, she opposes the commission's direction. A wireless-only overlay would be discriminatory, she argues. "The commission intention was to impact very few customers, and this would impact a lot of customers," she said. And she said it will be very difficult to carry out a customer education plan if the debate is to be reopened. "Money has been spent on TV, radio and print ads that are already running," she said. "It's very hard, once started, to go back and change the entire thing." The commission said it would decide on "procedural alternatives" next week. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:55:30 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "A World's Fair for the Global Village", Carl Malamud Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWFFTGV.RVW 971013 "A World's Fair for the Global Village", Carl Malamud, 1997, 0-262-13338-5, U$40.00 %A Carl Malamud carl@media.org %C 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1399 %D 1997 %G 0-262-13338-5 %I MIT Press %O U$40.00 800-356-0343 fax: 617-625-6660 www-mitpress.mit.edu %P 281 + CD + CD-ROM %T "A World's Fair for the Global Village" In retrospect, of course, the idea of a World's Fair on the Internet (or, rather, the World Wide Web) seems an obvious concept. In retrospect, all great ideas seem obvious. But Malamud and cohorts actually did it, and it sounds like it was quite something. Malamud's account is, as always, readable, informative, and amusing. The story of the fair touches on a great many areas of technology, society, people, and politics. I must admit that I knew nothing about it. I knew about the "Day in the Life of the Net" book project, I knew about NetDay, and I knew about some of the other activities that were apparently part of the overall fair, but the fair itself seems to have slipped by me. I *may* have heard of it, but, if so, it didn't register. This fact may say something about my observational skills, the sheer scope and size of the net, or the impact of the fair relative to Malamud's impression of it. Take your pick. The Internet 1996 World Exposition claims five million visitors and one hundred million dollars worth of donated telecommuncations bandwidth. On the other hand, Netscape and such vital sites as playboy.com claim multiple millions of hits per day. On the third hand, Expo '86, as a class three exposition, had ten million individual visitors at a basic budget of three hundred million dollars. Is the Internet 1996 World Exposition important, and will it leave any legacy such as London's Crystal Palace or Paris' Eiffel Tower? Yes, and yes. The basic content of the fair itself is still, apparently, available at http://park.org. The pages, however, are not as important as the fact that it was done at all. The experiences involved, as recounted in the book, show once again that even such technically implicated government institutions as the patent office still do not realize the ramifications of the technology. A committed and informal group put together something that major information conglomerates could not match. A donation of services from a company that could only look forward to long term public goodwill suddenly made a direct, immediate, and unforseen contribution to the company's profits. A project seen as as an amusing exercise in community suddenly and substantially increased the world's effective networking capacity. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWFFTGV.RVW 971013 ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Americans Gain Right to Delete Icons Date: 22 Jan 1998 11:13:16 -0500 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] In a stunning victory for the computer user, and the American people at large, Yahoo! reports that the Justice Department today established the right to delete the Microsoft Internet Explorer icon from the Windows 95 desktop. Microsoft previously forbade computer manufacturers, under threat of losing their license to distribute Windows 95, to omit this icon from their preconfigured desktops, regardless of whether their customers desired the package or not. The Justice Department and Microsoft today announced an agreement to lift this prohibition. Computer makers will now be free to configure their systems with or without this icon, or to install Netscape Communicator as the sole browser. This move unfetters the vendors so that they can serve their customer's interests in total freedom, without the threat of external interference. The larger question of whether Microsoft violated the 1995 consent decree has not yet been resolved. [My own text. Ok, so it's a little cheesy but I think it frames the question in the right form.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:10:17 From: Greg Monti Subject: How Do They Know It's A Pay Phone? On the last page of the bill for my WorldCom calling card, dated January 12, 1998, was the following notice: --- Begin quoted text --- 'Attention Toll Free and Calling Card Customers On October 9, the FCC issued an order which had an immediate effect on all customers who make or receive calls originating from payphones. This order implemented a new payphone compensation rate per completed call for calling card calls, certain "0+" calls, and toll-free calls. WorldCom revised its tariff in October and added a payphone surcharge applicable to these calls. However, a separate FCC order has affected the ability of WorldCom and other carriers to distinguish between payphone calls and calls from certain other locations (see explanation below). As a result, WorldCom is making changes to our surcharge structure which will increase the number of call types to which the payphone surcharge will apply. WorldCom and other carriers identify payphone calls using "info digits" received from the local phone companies along with the call. However, the FCC's order recently excused a number of local phone companies from providing the required "info digits" on all calls. As a result, WorldCom and other long distance carriers cannot immediatly identify payphone calls, but the FCC has threatened that WorldCom will still have to pay for these calls. As an example, one of the info digits passed from payphones is "07." Since this digit is also used for other types of phones with restricted lines, and pending further FCC action, WorldCom will apply the $0.30 payphone surcharge to calls from these lines. We regret the necessity of this action and have registered strong opposition with the FCC. Our alternative - to bill the surcharge for the payphone calls retroactively, probably months from now - does not appear to be in the best interest of our customers. Our FCC tariff revisions to implement this change became effective on November 13, 1997. All surcharged calls will be identified on your invoice as "payphone" although it is possible that some will have originated from locations other than payphones.' --- end quoted text --- Fabulous. I wonder how many local telcos were excused from sending the info digits. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Interference Analysis and Mitigation" Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:23:14 -0800 On April 14-17, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Interference Analysis and Mitigation for Wireless Communications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Reinaldo "Ray" Perez, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, Hughes Space and Communications International. The problem of interference in wireless communications has become an area of serious concern to system engineers. This course provides an introduction to the various aspects of interference that now must be addressed in the design of wireless communications systems. The course presents introductory material concerning interference in communication electronics, satellites, and base stations. Major topics include: o Interference in Communications Subsystems o Interference in Satellite Communications o Environmental Effects in Satellite Systems o Base Station Interference The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course notes. These course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:27:29 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Lucent or Not? (was Re: Teleport / AT&T Merger) Darrell Hale wrote: > I find it interesting that ATT is buying a company that uses > elements that are non Lucent such as DEX 600's of ACC and U.S.Wats > and I believe that TCG has DMS-500s. Just thought that represents a > big change in the ATT attitude towards flexibility at least from an > operations side. Well, remember that Lucent _has_ been spun-off from AT&T. But this isn't the first time that AT&T has used non-Lucent (or non-WECO) equipment. In more recent times: AT&T bought Alascom from PTI (Pacific Telecom) about three years ago. Alascom's toll network throughout Alaska was based on Nortel's DMS-200 switches. For several years now, AT&T has an association with what was known as Unitel in Canada, now known as AT&T Canada Long Distance. While there are about two (Lucent) #4ESS toll switches and one or more (Lucent) #5ESS OSPS/toll switches in AT&T-Canada, there are several Nortel DMS-200 switches which had been used by Unitel. For several years prior to divestiture, many Bell telcos in the US (all owned by AT&T) began to use switches and other types of equipment, manufactured by non-WECO companies, even though WECO made similar equipment. Some BOCs were using Northern Telecom DMS switches for local end offices. WECO didn't come out with the #5ESS as a _digital_ local end office until the early-to-mid-1980's. And since divestiture, the RBOCs have been free to purchase equipment from any manufacturer. Many continued to remain loyal to AT&T's WECO for most types of equipment. But in the Operator Services arena, virtually every RBOC uses Nortel DMS-200 TOPS, rather than AT&T/WECO TSPS or OSPS (although some do use AT&T/WECO/Lucent-made OSPS). Likewise, most RBOCs use Nortel DMS-200 switches for their inTRA-LATA tandem and inTER-LATA access-tandem switches, rather than AT&T/WECO/Lucent-made #4ESS or #5ESS (although some RBOCs do own some #4E and #5E tandems). Most RBOCs have continued to use AT&T/WECO/Lucent style payphones or payphone-housings, although in more recent years the RBOCs have begun to use Nortel Millenium "smart" (COCOT-like) payphones. Since the mid-1970's, what has become Nortel has had no ownership from AT&T. But prior to 1975, it was known as Northern Electric, and AT&T/WECO still owned a small percentage of Bell-Canada/NECO. However, while NECO equipment was virtually identical to that of WECO, it was manufactured for use in Canada. Going back to the earlier part of this century, when AT&T/Bell began to introduce dial switching equipment (early 1920's), the Step-by-Step (SxS) switching offices were installed, engineered, and/or manufactured by the Automatic Electric Company of Chicago (what eventually became GTE's AE manufacturing division), but according to AT&T/WECO specifications. The 'independent' telcos and AE pioneered automated/dial SxS equipment in the first two decades of the 20th-Century. And starting around the time of WW-I, when AT&T/Bell bought/absorbed an independent, if that telco was automated/dial SxS, AT&T/Bell did _not_ remove the dial service nor replace it with WECO SxS eqipment, but rather kept the non-WECO (usually AE) SxS dial service in place. Prior to WW-I, customers of a (non-WECO) dial independent which was absorbed by "the Bell" were usually _forced_ to cut-over to _manual_ operator-handled local service, on switchboards made by WECO! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Thomas J. Huot Subject: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:50:06 -0500 We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our caller ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these calls are hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm not sure if they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. My question is: Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a message informing the caller that our line does not accept unidentified callers, and if they want to get through, they need to unblock their number. If there is such a box, I would like to know about it. Has anyone heard of such a thing? Thanks in advance for any help. Tom Huot huot@cray.com [TELECOM Digesst Editor's Note: Several telcos offer a 'block the blocker' type service where calls sent as 'private' are intercepted at the telco switch and refused before they even reach you. Another service offered by telcos is known as 'call screening' and this allows you to set up a group of numbers from which you do not wish to recieve calls at any time. *It is not necessary to know the number of the caller to use this service.* If you have call screening on your line, one provision allows for 'add the number of the last call you received to the list'. The way it works here I think is that (assuming you have that service) you turn it on with *66 and then press *1 when following the prompts). It has been a long time since I had the service and I do not remember the prompts all that well. In addition to being 'reactive' and adding the (unknown) number of the 'last call received' you can also be pro-active and add in advance numbers you know about -- from almost anywhere in the country -- that you'd rather not talk to. The only numbers you cannot add to your call screening list are calls which arrive on your caller-id screen as 'outside' or 'unknown'. If you try to block one of those you'll get a recording which says, 'the number you are attempting to add to your call screening list cannot be added at this time.' But since you are getting calls from this goofus marked 'private' I am sure he can be added with no difficulty. The only flaw in this service is if the party has more than one line, he can use the other line to call you and get through; call screening works only on the actual number given, and knows nothing about the actual person placing the call. So if the party gets cute and uses some other line to call you, then your response is to add that number also to the directory which can hold up to ten numbers I think. The calling party gets intercepted at the phone switch with a message saying 'the party you are calling is not accepting calls at this time ... try again later.' Of course he can try later all he likes, you are never going to remove that entry from your directory. Ask your telco business office about these features and having them turned on, and the cost. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AOL Accuses Navy of Tricking it to Get Data Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:03:22 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AOL accuses Navy of tricking it to get data By Jim Wolf WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Internet service provider America Online accused the U.S. Navy Wednesday of duping it into disclosing data on a subscriber now at the center of a wide-reaching privacy lawsuit. In a statement, AOL said the Navy "deliberately ignored both federal law and well-established procedures for handling government inquiries" and used trickery instead in the case of Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh, 36, is suing the Navy and the Defense Department for allegedly unlawfully obtaining confidential subscriber data without a court order. He is not related to the convicted Oklahoma City bomber of the same name. On Jan. 5, the Navy ordered McVeigh's discharge for allegedly violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars U.S. military personnel from declaring themselves to be homosexual. Although McVeigh never publicly discussed his sexual orientation, he had listed himself as "gay" in the marital status section of an AOL online user profile. Summing up an internal investigation, AOL said a Navy investigator fooled a customer service representative by posing as "a friend or acquaintance" of McVeigh to confirm information the Navy had gathered elsewhere. "Our member services representative did confirm information presented to him by the Navy," AOL conceded. "This clearly should not have happened and we regret it." The Navy said Wednesday night that it had gathered enough evidence to begin McVeigh's discharge on homosexuality grounds even without the AOL-provided information. "There was no intentional violations of any federal laws or regulations by Department of the Navy personnel," a Navy statement said. At a U.S. District Court hearing in Washington, government lawyers agreed Wednesday to delay the planned administrative discharge of McVeigh until at least Friday. The voluntary delay was to give Judge Stanley Sporkin time to rule on McVeigh's emergency injunction motions seeking to prevent his discharge, his attorney, Christopher Wolf, said. Last week, the Navy had agreed to put off the discharge, initially scheduled for last Friday, until at least Wednesday. McVeigh has charged that the Navy investigator, Joseph Kaiser, and his supervisor, Lt. Karen Morean, breached his rights under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The law bars Internet service providers from knowingly releasing confidential information gathered online to law enforcement officers without a court order. McVeigh's lawsuit was the first to challenge government access to sensitive information maintained by an online service, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based group that monitors civil liberties issues on the Internet. In its statement, AOL said it was "instituting additional measures" to "reinforce our privacy policies and procedures" to emwployees who handle its more than one million subscribers calls a week. The Dulles, Virginia-based company, which claims to be the world's largest Internet online service, announced on Tuesday that it had expanded its reach to eleven million subscribers worldwide. ------------------------------ From: Christian Beckmann Subject: Japanese Primary Rate ISDN Standards Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:08:24 +0100 Organization: Siemens AG, Munich Reply-To: sl398be@uni-duisburg.de I 've got some problems concerning the Japanese standards for primary rate ISDN. They've got a standard based on the European E1 standard. The Japanese standards are JJ-20.10, JJ-20.11, JJ-20.12 and JJ-20.20. They all deal with the PBX-TDM Interface and NTT-2M. Has anybody informations about these standards? Or do you know something about framing, synchronization and alarms? Bye, Christian ------------------------------ From: Argi Krikelis Subject: New Publication for World Wide Web and Internet Research Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:30:22 +0000 Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK World Wide Web Communications A new online publishing environment for World Wide Web and Internet research Scope World Wide Web Communications is an online publishing environment supported by Elsevier Science for early dissemination of articles, papers, tutorials and related information of interest to researchers and practitioners dealing with the challenges resulted from the globalization of information access, especially in the areas related closely to the World Wide Web and the Internet. World Wide Web Communications aims to cover research topics of interest to both researchers in academic and industrial environments. Topics may include, but not restricted to, technical issues such as distributed computing, collaborative work, World Wide Web information storage, retrieval and security aspects, as well as others with a social dimension which stress aspects of implementation for the development of the Information Society. A special focus on the emerging aspects of new media forms and environments is encouraged. Starting in 1988, peer-reviewed contributions to World Wide Web Communications will appear online bimonthly. Selected papers may be published within special issues of the Computer Networks & ISDN Systems journal with an additional review procedure and subject to the final agreement of the editor. Submission Details Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original research, innovative case studies, actual project experiences, state-of-the-art surveys, and tutorials in the topics related to the scope of World Wide Web Communications. The language of World Wide Web Communications is English. All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed. Submissions should be in uuencoded, gzipped, postscript or Adobe PDF forms and e-mailed to argy.krikelis@aspex.co.uk. Manuscripts must be made printable on standard A4 size paper (8.268 by 11.693 inches). In cases where electronic submission is not possible, send 4 copies to: Argy Krikelis Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom Every manuscript must have: * Title Page containing manuscript title, author name(s), postal and e-mail addresses, phone and fax numbers. * Abstract page. * Keywords and Phrases that characterize the theme of the manuscript appearing at the bottom of the Abstract Page. In principle and within reason, there is no length limitation on the submitted manuscripts. A manuscript's length is judged with respect to the quality of its content. Submitted manuscripts do not have to follow any particular format and style. After acceptance of a manuscript for publication, its author(s) will be required to follow specific instructions. For further informations about World Wide Web Communications you can contact: Argy Krikelis Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom Tel: +44 1895 203184 Fax: +44 1895 203185 E-mail: argy.krikelis@aspex.co.uk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #17 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 22 23:19:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA22859; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:19:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:19:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801230419.XAA22859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #18 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Jan 98 23:18:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (The Old Bear) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (John B. Hines) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Mark Geary) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Stanley Cline) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Andreas Pavlik) Re: Stupid Question of the Week (Richard Shima) Re: Stupid Question of the Week (Larry Finch) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:26:10 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced > that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the > decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free > ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to > court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court > to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of > traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter > not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' This is very interesting, especially in light of the following: THE WEB AT 1.5 MILLION BITS A SECOND Compaq, Intel, and Microsoft are teaming up with major local phone service providers GTE and four of the Bell companies (with the exception of BELL ATLANTIC) to develop technology that would improve Internet access to a speed of 1.5 million bits a second. The new ultrafast modems would use ordinary phonelines but would remain connected to the Net at all times without the need to dial a service provider and without interfering with normal voice conversations over the same line. The project will be based on DSL ("digital subscriber line") technology. as summarized by Edupage from: The New York Times, January 20, 1998 I will leave it to the conspiracy theorists to draw the connection between the two stories. Of course, I received in Wednesday's mail a fancy plastic and cardboard marketing piece, complete with CD-ROM, for "Bell Atlantic.net (sm)" whose marketing material breathlessly exclaims: Where the information is. Where the people are. Where you start with 30 days FREE unlimited usage. The printed material explain that you can chose between $17.95 per month ($198/year) for unlimited usage or $4.95/mo for 5 hours plus $1.95 for each additional hour after the 30-day free trial period. Does this sound like a company which wants to discourage internet use of its facilities? But wait -- that's not all. In the print brochure, there are two tiny footnotes. The first says that the 5-hour measured plan is not available with ISDN connections. (Interestingly, ISDN is only available as a measured service under Bell Atlantic tariffs in New England and New York.) The other tiny footnotes are even more interesting. They read: *GSP charge not included. This, evidently, applies to both the "free 30-day period" and whichever billing plan one elects beyond that. The term "GSP" is never defined in the print material, but one of the footnotes adds "Insert disk for complete details." Well, I did not insert the disk but I did go to the BellAtlantic.net web page and learned: Bell Atlantic.net service via ISDN is not currently available in NY, MA, ME, VT, CT, RI and NH. (For customers in VA, DC, MD, PA, NJ and DE, Bell Atlantic definitely has a service that will meet your needs at an affordable price. You can order the Bell Atlantic.net service for ISDN by filling out our online order form.) GSP stands for Global Service Provider. GSPs are companies which provide connections directly to the Internet -- a service that Bell Atlantic cannot provide to its customers in its region at this time. Other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charge for long distance data carrier (GSP) service but their charges are often incorporated into their monthly service fee. Bell Atlantic gives you a choice of Global Service Providers, and separates their pass-through charges from our service charges because communications over the Internet have been ruled a long-distance service. Until Bell Atlantic receives approval to enter the long-distance market in our 7-state region, you will be asked to choose a GSP as your "long distance" Internet carrier for Internet connections. I hope someone sends the Government lawyers in St. Louis their free Bell Atlantic Net disks soon. :) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:28:14 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server And in today's news http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/980122/tech/stories/bellatlantic_2.html They are getting into DSL services. Is this just a coincidence? ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:30:49 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha to Bell "The Empire" Atlantic. Here in RI, a couple of the ISP's have already switched over to Brooks. Let's see BA collect off that one. These companies KNEW that demand was going to explode once the Bell System was broken up, yet they did nothing then and now they expect us to pay the price. Here's what I tell my customers when I install a network for them, "You can spend $25 now for me to add that extra tap, or you can spend $220 when you ask me to add it later." I'm so glad that in the next month or two, I'll be able to tell the jerks at BA to kiss my butt. First chance I get, both my lines get switched to another carrier, thank you. I'm sick and tired of the monopoly companies trying to eek out every dime they can from subscribers. Curiously, it's common knowledge here in RI that BA is "adjusting" it's business rates due to competition. HA HA HA! Several years ago some friends and I did a little experiment and determined that there was no need for in-state tolls. The actual cost to Nynex at the time was .0006 per minute, not .15 a minute. > If you get a chance, listen to the message before it gets changed, and > post your thoughts here. Remember that 800-647-NEWS is intended for > *internal* use by BA employees, and is not an official media source > for news from the company. Thanks for posting that. Back when Nynex was still the company you could dial 955-5000 here and get the Nynex News. Tony ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: 21 Jan 1998 05:32:20 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:00:00 EST, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced > that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the > decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free > ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to > court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court > to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of > traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter > not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' Great. Alas, it's not in that court's jurisdiction. This was dealt with last year, and the FCC apparently feels it has the right to reserve jurisdiction on the topic of access fees, and this is what I sent to all my correspondents on the topic: ------------------------ It's come to my attention that people think that the FCC's plan last year to investigate charging Internet Service Providers access fees the way telcos are charged -- by the minute -- has cropped up again. It hasn't. This is a dead issue. Here's the web page from the FCC's web site that says so; you might wish to clip the portion between the lines and keep it around for forwarding to the next person who tells you about this. :-) ==================================================================== [retrieved from www.fcc.gov, 11 January 1998] THE FCC, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND ACCESS CHARGES This fact sheet offers informal guidance on an issue that has generated a great deal of public interest. For more specific details about the proceedings currently before the Commission, please visit our web site (http://www.fcc.gov/). _________________________________________________________________ In December 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requested public comment on issues relating to the charges that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and similar companies pay to local telephone companies. On May 7, 1997, the FCC decided to leave the existing rate structure in place. In other words, the FCC decided not to allow local telephone companies to impose per-minute access charged on ISPs. Please Note: There is no open comment period in this proceeding. If you have recently seen a message on the Internet stating that "in response to a request from local telephone companies, the FCC is requesting comments to by February 1998", be aware that this information is inaccurate. The FCC issued an unrelated public notice, DA 98-2, on January 5, 1998 in connection with a report to Congress on universal service. Pursuant to the FCC's 1998 appropriations legislation, the Commission must submit a report by April 10, 1998 on several issues including the legal status of Internet services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Comments in response to the public notice are due January 20, 1998, and reply comments are due February 2, 1998. Informal comments may be sent by email to . _________________________________________________________________ Background Information Each long distance telephone call you make includes per-minute fees that your long distance carrier pays to the originating and terminating local telephone companies over whose facilities that call also travelled. Those fees, which are designed to recover the costs to local telephone companies for use of their facilities, are referred to as "access charges." As part of its Access Reform proceeding, CC Docket 96-262, the FCC in December 1996 sought comment on the treatment of ISPs and other "enhanced service providers" that also use local telephone companies' facilities. Since the access charge system was established in 1983, enhanced service providers have been classified as "end users" rather than "carriers" for purposes of the access charge rules, and therefore they do not pay the per-minute access charges that long-distance companies pay to local telephone companies. In the Access Reform Order, FCC 97-158, adopted on May 7, 1997, the FCC concluded that the existing rate structure for ISPs should remain in place. In other words, the Commission reaffirmed that ISPs are not required to pay interstate access charges. When it began the Access Reform proceeding, the Commission also issued a Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket 96-263, seeking comment more broadly on usage of the public switched telephone network by Internet and interstate information service providers. A Notice of Inquiry is a request for information that does not involve any specific proposed action. The Commission stated in the Access Reform order that it intended to use the Notice of Inquiry record to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing actions to facilitate the efficient deployment of data networks. _________________________________________________________________ Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Services and Access Charges Q: Does the FCC regulate the rates charged by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)? A: No. ISPs are considered "enhanced service providers" under FCC rules. The FCC does not regulate the rates that enhanced service providers charge to their subscribers. ___________________________________ Q: How does the FCC regulate the rates that local telephone companies charge to ISPs? A: ISPs purchase local phone lines so that customers can call them. Under FCC rules, enhanced service providers ISPs are considered "end users" when they purchase services from local telephone companies. Thus, ISPs pay the same rates as any other business customer, and these rates are set separately in each state. By contrast, long-distance companies are considered "carriers," and they pay interstate access charges regulated by the FCC. ___________________________________ Q: How are access charges different from the rates ISPs pay now? A: Today, ISPs typically purchase "business lines" from local phone companies. Business lines usually include a flat monthly charge, and a per-minute charge for making outgoing calls. Because ISPs receive calls from their subscribers rather than making outgoing calls, ISPs generally do not pay any per-minute charges for their lines, which is one reason many ISPs do not charge per-minute rates for Internet access. Access charges, by contrast, include per-minute fees for both outgoing and incoming calls. The rate levels of interstate access charges are also in many cases higher than the flat business line rates ISPs pay today. ___________________________________ Q: Have local phone companies requested authority from the FCC to charge per-minute rates to ISPs? A: Since 1983, there has been an ongoing debate about whether enhanced service providers should be required to pay access charges, based on the contention that these companies use local networks in the same manner as long-distance carriers. In June 1996, four local telephone companies (Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic, US West, and NYNEX) submitted studies to the FCC concerning the effects of Internet usage on these carriers' networks. The companies argued that the existing rate structure did not reflect the costs imposed on local telephone companies to support Internet access, and that Internet usage was causing congestion in part of the local network. In connection with these studies and other pleadings, several local phone companies have asked the FCC for authority to charge interstate access charges to ISPs, although they have not filed a formal petition for rulemaking. ___________________________________ Q: Is the FCC considering allowing local phone companies to impose access charges on ISPs? A: The FCC requested public comment in December 1996 on whether ISPs should pay current access charges, and more generally on how Internet and interstate information services that use local telephone networks should be treated. The Commission concluded on May 7, 1997 that ISPs should not be subject to interstate access charges. There is currently no open comment period on this issue. ___________________________________ Q: Does the FCC currently have an ongoing proceeding on Internet and interstate information services? A: The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in December 1996, at the same time as it asked for comment on whether ISPs should be subject to access charges. The NOI asked generally about how to create incentives for companies to make the most efficient use of the telephone network for Internet and other information services. The comment period for the NOI is closed, but the FCC has stated that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) asking for comment on more specific proposals based on the responses to the NOI. The NPRM will consider actions other than imposition of per-minute access charges on ISPs. ___________________________________ Q: What is the difference between a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)? A: A NOI is the earliest step in the FCC's process and typically asks questions in an effort to gather enough information to make informed proposals on a given topic. A NPRM is a request for comment on specific proposals made by the Commission. After the FCC reviews the comments filed in response to an NPRM, the FCC can issue a Report and Order adopting new rules. ___________________________________ Q: Are comments filed by other parties be available for review? A: Yes. All formal comments are available for review in the FCC Reference Center in Washington DC, and copies may be purchased through International Transcription Services, which can be reached at 202-857-3800. In addition, copies of comments that were submitted on diskette are available for review at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/comments.html. ___________________________________ Q: Is the FCC considering taxes for use of the Internet or online services? A: No. The debate involves charges levied by local phone companies, not government taxes. ___________________________________ Q: Is this the "FCC modem tax" that has been floating around the Internet in various forms for several years? A: The "modem tax" referred to a proposal in 1987 to require enhanced service providers to pay interstate access charges, which at that time were significantly higher than they are today. The 1987 proposal was abandoned in 1988. The current Access Reform proceeding is entirely separate. ___________________________________ For more specific questions, see the Access Reform page on the on the FCC Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html. Last Updated January 7, 1998 --------------------- I hope this clarifies the issue. Basically, the Circuit court would have to overrule the FCC. I'm not sure they can actually even do that, since the FCC holds inclusive venue, being a federal, rather than merely circuit, agency, but IANAL. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: geary@lucent.com (Mark Geary) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: 21 Jan 1998 02:27:06 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio Reply-To: geary@lucent.com In article , T. S. Chomicz wrote: > AT&T accepts MC, DC, AX, their own cards, and most LEC cards. They do > not accept VISA, regardless of your ethnic origin. Probably what the > operator was confused about was that if you have an AT&T Universal > VISA, you can use the calling card number printed on the bottom of the > card, but not the main VISA number itself. Last month I was visiting San Francisco and used my AT&T Universal VISA to make long distance calls home. I know I used the VISA number and not the calling card number because I had forgotten my PIN for using the calling card. Mark Geary ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:40:08 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 20 Jan 1998 00:15:40 GMT, tomc@marconi.ih.lucent.com (T. S. Chomicz) wrote: > AT&T accepts MC, DC, AX, their own cards, and most LEC cards. They do > not accept VISA, regardless of your ethnic origin. Probably what the Other large IXCs, including MCI and Sprint, as well as the two large "credit card roaming companies" (i.e., Boston Communications Group dba Cellular Express, and American Roaming Network) do not take Visa as well. Strangely, some LECs and AOSleaze providers (such as 1-800-BellSou[th], which Teltrust operates on behalf of BS) *DO* take Visa; virtually all cellular carriers and some LECs and IXCs take Visa cards for payments, deposits, etc. on established accounts (I had a low-rate calling card billed to a Visa card for some time); and AT&T and some LECs, notably BellSouth, offer co-branded Visa cards! AFAICT, Visa simply doesn't want its cards used as a "calling card", unless it goes through VisaPhone (whose service is provided by MCI) -- notwithstanding the facts that a) offering VisaPhone may be a conflict of interest for some co-branded card issuers (*especially* AT&T), and b) it does nothing at all to address the wireless roaming/airphone services, which IMO is more of a problem. > instructions for the AT&T air to ground phones, VISA is not listed > among the acceptable credit cards. This should be indicative of the The main question that Visa has so far refused to answer: Why are cellular and airphone services lumped together with traditional calling card usage? They are NOT THE SAME THING, if only because "equal access" is an alien term when it comes to wireless. What are wireless providers to do, provide access to VisaPhone *AND* CX/ARN/whatever? I assume "fraud" has something to do with it, but Visa has never said a word. (Yes, one can use LEC and/or AT&T cards -- I've had to do so with the cellular crap [thank US Cellular for having no service where I was] once or twice -- but that's absurd) > I understand they do this because of some operational restrictions > that VISA USA places on telecommunications companies. I do not know > the exact details. The restrictions certainly don't apply to everyone in the telecom biz. Allowing Teltrust (and Oncor and other AOS crap), but not Boston/CellEx or AT&T, to take Visa, is plain stupid. VisaPhone has been a flop, at least in the US, and they know it, but refuse to give up their ground. Stanley Cline (IRC:Roamer1).....Telecommunications & Consumer Advocacy Chattanooga & Atlanta..............(no spam!) roamer1[at]pobox[dot]com main web page.......................http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ the payphone page....................http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ ------------------------------ From: pavlik@pap.univie.ac.at (Andreas Pavlik) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:24:18 GMT Organization: University of Vienna On 20 Jan 1998 02:52:21 -0000, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > I recall reading somewhere that Visa is trying to start their own Visa > phone card system which got them into a fight with telcos including > AT&T, with the result that AT&T does indeed take every kind of plastic > on the planet other than Visa. It's not red-lining -- they really > reject all sorts of Visa cards. At least European VISA cards can be used as calling cards using a service called Visaphone, which is done by Sprint/Global One. For Austrian VISA cards the "calling card number" is the main credit card number plus a PIN which is different from the PIN to be used at ATMs. Andreas Pavlik University of Viennaienna, Austria ------------------------------ From: Richard Shima Subject: Re: Stupid Question of the Week Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:18:56 -0500 Organization: The Shima Co. Reply-To: RShima@att.net Bill Levant wrote: > I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with > the standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination > slide-in stand and charger. The battery is only good for > about two hours of standby, or 15 minutes on the phone (down > from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I want to replace it > with an NiMH battery. > Question: Do I need a new charger, too? If your charger has a high- or fast-rate charge, I say definitely. > No one will give me a straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog > (now THERE'S an authoritative source) sez "you MAY need a new > charger..." (thanks lots), but none of the third-party > catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different kind of > charger ... One must consider a rechargeable battery and it's associated charger a system; by design they're interdependent for optimal operation and safety. There's a lot more here than meets the casual eye. Rechargeable battery packs are encased with more than just battery cells, wire, and contacts--they likely have thermistors, diodes, and some include LEDs, thermocouples, and "smart" circuitry that work in concert with the charger unit, effectively in an electrical system loop. These elements are used variously ... to display a charge, regulate the charge rate (higher when cool, lower when hot), help to prevent overcharge, and prevent meltdown/explosion from overheating/overcharging/shorting. There is a tradeoff between ultimate battery life and the charge rate--higher charge rate = faster recovery/usability for the customer = shorter overall lifetime. Some chargers hit the battery hard when it is cool and discharged, then cut back the charge rate when the battery warms up and tops off; some use special waveshapes to charge more effectively, and some add sophisticated current sensing so they can charge very fast but safely. But how one charges effectively and economically also depends upon the type of battery--it's elemental/chemical makeup. The charger unit needs to be designed to work with a particular type of battery (its properties). Optimal charging rates, temperatures, etc. vary with battery properties; NiCAD and NiMH are different ~animals~. Don't buy a battery from anyone who cannot tell you whether it's designed/guaranteed to work safely with, or not to work with your OEM charger. Generally speaking, NiCAD needs a NiCAD designed charger; NiMH needs a NiMH designed charger. A potential mismatch between battery and charger is most critical--possibly even dangerous--when dealing with fast (high) recharge rates; trickle only charge rates aren't as much of a problem. Play safe and deal so you have recourse. A suggestion might be to ask your Motorola supplier whether Motorola itself offers a NiMH replacement battery that works properly with your Tele-T-A-C and the associated OEM NiCAD battery charger. Take note of that Motorola battery model/part number. Beside OEM battery replacement, there are lots of third-party replacement battery makers that offer decent warranties, specific replacement batteries (by model, etc.), and guarantees, along with charger suitability charts. Search the Web if your local cellular phone supplier waffles. Richard Shima | Internet: RShima@att.net The Shima Co. | CompuServe: 74037,2425 Mayfield Heights | FidoNet (Point on Nerd's Nook): 1:157/2.10 Ohio 44124 USA | Voice & fax: 440 461-4357 | Radio: WB8MTE ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: Stupid Question of the Week Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:50:45 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bill Levant wrote: > Thanks to everyone who wrote with info about ISDN. I now know what I > need. > Being as it's Sunday, the beginning of a whole new week, I have a > whole new dumb question: > I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with the > standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination slide-in stand and > charger. The battery is only good for about two hours of standby, or > 15 minutes on the phone (down from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I > want to replace it with an NiMH battery. > Question: Do I need a new charger, too? No one will give me a > straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog (now THERE'S an authoritative > source) sez "you MAY need a new charger..." (thanks lots), but none of > the third-party catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different > kind of charger ... > Once again, slightly off-topic, so E-Mail welcomed. If you have the standard Motorola "overnight" charger you don't need a new one. If you have a Motorola EP charger (the "intelligent" charger), you don't need a new one. You need a new one if the charger you have is a rapid charger (charges your battery in 2 hours or less) AND it is not designed for NiMH batteries. The logic here is that NiMH batteries cannot be fast charged without a special monitoring circuit. LarryFinch@aol.com LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #18 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 27 02:23:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA29469; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:23:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:23:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801270723.CAA29469@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #19 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jan 98 02:23:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Snow Job (Adam Gaffin) Book Review: "Not Just JAVA", Peter van der Linden (Rob Slade) FCC Disappointed In Appeals Court Ruling On Telecom Pricing (Monty Solomon) Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? (ian@worldnet.att.net) Notes From Talk by Ed Kozel, CTO of Cisco (Anthony Argyriou) Billing & Collections, Bell Atlantic Forgets AT&T Charges (Robert Perillo) 1-800-COLLECT's Espanol Counterpart (Linc Madison) Signaling Types (was Re: What was SS6, SS5, etc...)(Mark J. Cuccia) Book Review: "Netizens", Michael Hauben/Ronda Hauben (Rob Slade) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Telecom Snow Job Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:05:01 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com In a special report this week, {Network World} Senior Editor David Rohde takes a look at the proliferation of groups purporting to represent corporate and consumer telecommunications users and finds that many are little more than fronts for phone companies. You can read his complete report at: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0126snow.html If you haven't used NWFusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Here's the beginning of his piece: Washington - Last October, the Federal Communications Commission received a 40-page legal briefing with three appendices from a group calling itself the Ad Hoc Coalition of Corporate Telecommunications Service Managers and Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies. The coalition, on behalf of signed users, urged the commission to approve BellSouth Corp.'s hotly debated application to enter the long-distance market in South Carolina. The group said it was certain that doing so would give users another option for long-distance service and force recalcitrant long-distance carriers to finally start competing for local business. There was just one problem: None of the users were in South Carolina. The brief was written by Washington, D.C., communications lawyer Rodney Joyce, but the users contacted by Network World said they never paid Joyce to write the brief. Instead, they said Joyce contacted them to cosign what they thought was an objective statement to the FCC on increasing competition in telecommunications. Who paid for the brief? Joyce's client: BellSouth. Welcome to Washington, D.C., where the 2-year-old Telecommunications Act of 1996 is falling apart and two groups of warring carriers have desperately sought to marshal a confused public to their way of thinking with ''user groups'' that produce surveys, filings and studies proving it is the other guy's fault. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ From: rslade@sprint.ca (Rob Slade) Subject: Book Review: "Not Just JAVA", Peter van der Linden Date: 26 Jan 1998 16:14:04 GMT Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Security BKNTJSJV.RVW 970816 "Not Just JAVA", Peter van der Linden, 1997, 0-13-864638-4, U$34.95/C$48.95 %A Peter van der Linden pvdl@best.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-864638-4 %I Prentice Hall %O U$34.95/C$48.95 800-576-3800, 416-293-3621 %O betsy_carey@prenhall.com %P 313 %S Java Series %T "Not Just JAVA" This book is not just about Java--and it is definitely not just for techies. The text provides a solid overview; not technically detailed, but technically very informed; of the major technologies driving the recent growth in networking and internetworking. Chapter one gives the impression of a basic Internet guide, albeit one that is rather more analytical than most. The second chapter reinforces the impression with a fairly detailed precis of the World Wide Web. Chapters three to six, though, explain various aspects of Java, itself, and its application. The last three chapters organize a number of important technologies such as client/server, intranets, network computers, enterprise computing, COM (Component Object Model), ActiveX (including a solid discussion of the security flaws), CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture), JDBC (Java Data Base Connectivity), and a review of the major players in the industry. The content is informed, but aimed at a general, rather than a technical, audience. The material is solid, as well as containing interesting snippets of trivia and gossip. And with the author's humour sprinkled throughout, the book is a lot more fun than most. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNTJSJV.RVW 970816 rslade@sprint.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca robertslade@usa.net The email service of Sprint Canada is unreliable. If you do not receive a reply, copy rslade@vcn.bc.ca and robertslade@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:34:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Disappointed In Appeals Court Ruling On Telecom Pricing FCC Disappointed In Appeals Court Ruling On Telecom Pricing (01/23/98; 4:59 p.m. EST) By Mary Mosquera, TechWeb FCC Chairman William Kennard bemoaned further erosion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in a St. Louis federal appeals court ruling Friday that upheld the right of states to set local Bell prices. "I am disappointed that two years after the Telecommuni- cations Act, yet another court decision will delay the benefits of competition for the American public," Kennard said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis upheld on Thursday a previous court order that states have the authority to set prices for regional Bell competitors that enter the local phone market. The FCC had tried to set discount prices for competitors coming into the local market because the government believed the Bells would charge them high rates to hook into their lines. "The FCC's justification of its reassertion of local pricing authority lacks even the scent of merit," the court ruling said. The ruling did not offer new ammunition to regional Bells but added impetus to the Bells' campaign to hold onto the monopoly in local markets. Last month, a federal court in Texas struck down parts of the landmark telecom act that said Baby Bells cannot enter the $80 billion long distance market until they can prove to the FCC that they have opened their local markets. Additionally, the Supreme Court is expected to decide Monday whether to hear an appeal of a group of rulings also to do with local pricing. "The FCC's declaration of pricing authority imposed an obstacle to competition," said Mark Roellig, a spokesman for regional Bell, U S West Communications. "We're ready to compete." ------------------------------ From: Ian Subject: Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:37:04 -0800 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services We have four sites in Seattle where we are trying to get frame-relay service installed. US West is the telco here. Of the four sites, one is in the core area of the city, where there might be alternate options available as far as outside plant goes, but the rest are not. All the locations are stand-alone buildings wholly occupied by our offices. According to US West, there is no copper available at any of the sites, even the one in the core of the city. How can this be? I can see where there might be some transitory shortage in one or two locations, but all four? We're now being given the usual runaround about it taking 3-12 months before service can be installed. Are we out of options here? Reply in the newsgroup please as my address has been de-spammed. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Notes From Talk by Ed Kozel, CTO of Cisco Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:23:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com I was at NetTech 98, a small conference in South San Francisco, held this past Wednesday. The first Keynote speaker was Edward Kozel, CTO and SVP of Business Development for Cisco systems. A few interesting comments he made: Nationally, data traffic will outpace voice traffic on the PSTN by about 2002. In California, we're already there! Cisco (and others) are working on technology which will allow sending of different colors (wavelengths) of light down fiber-optic cable. They're up to 16 colors already, and expect to have 80 colors within a year or so. Upgrade the switches, and capacity problems on the fiber optic network go away, for a while. This technology is called WDM, but I don't remember what that stood for. Kozel expects that within 5 years, PacBell will offer its larger business customers voice service for FREE. They'll make their money on data transmission services. He expects that will spread to other areas and smaller customers over time. Until recently, Cisco had a rough balance between bits in and bits out. They have recently become a net consumer of data bits. The change is primarily in entertainment video. The result is much happier engineers. (said sarcastically) Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 09:26 EST From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Billing & Collections, Bell Atlantic Forgets AT&T Charges Bell Atlantic Corp. failed to bill approximately 400,000 AT&T customers in parts of Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., and West Virginia for their long-distance calls on their latest telephone bill. AT&T stated that their Operations Support Systems (OSS) provided Bell Atlantic with the correct billing data for the three of the twenty billing cycles, customer's billed on the 2nd, 4-5th, and 7th of the month, and that a Bell Atlantic computer error failed to produce the AT&T portion of the bill. Bell Atlantic has stated that the problem was a "systems glitch", "processing error", and/or "data processing error". The rest of Bell Atlantic's 26 million customers, outside the mid-Atlantic region, on a different billing cycle, or not using AT&T as a long-distance provider, were not affected. Bell Atlantic will include the omitted AT&T long distance calls in affected customer's February phone bills. Special arrangements, including payment extensions, will be made for any customer's who have problems budgeting next month's bill. It is assumed that AT&T which has a Billing and Collections contract with Bell Atlantic, will receive refunds and penalty payments because of the error? This information comes from an AT&T press release, dated 16-Jan-1998, reprinted in most local papers, such as the {Richmond Times-Dispatch}, 17-Jan-1998, page C10. Bell Atlantic Customer Service Representatives seem to know very little about the problem? Bell Atlantic has not reported the details of the problem to the National Telecommunications Clearinghouse dealing with Computer Reliability and Security, which they are supposed to do, so that these type of technical problems can be corrected and prevented by the industry in the future. If anybody knows the specific technical details of what happened, please post them here and/or send them to me? Supposedly, computer tapes were used to transfer the billing details between AT&T and Bell Atlantic. Why is 1960's technology being used? Why aren't the billing details transmitted electronically over a communications/computer network between the two companies in Electronic Message Interexchange (EMI) format using a Customer Billing Services System (CBSS)? Operations Support Systems (OSS), which controls ordering, service provisioning, administration, billing and collections, for telecommunications services are becoming more complicated and critical in this age of telecommunications de-regulation. Risks of Slamming (unauthorized change of service provider), Cramming (unexplained, unclear, or invalid charges on the bill), Fraud, and billing inaccuracies (15-23%) are directly controlled by the OSS. OSS software and equipment must have open systems architecture, standardized interfaces, high quality, reliability, and security. Long Distance companies are forced to use the Regional Holding Companies (RHC's) for Billing and Collections (B&C). AT&T has had problems with Bell Atlantic in the mid-Atlantic region because Bell Atlantic has disconnected service of customer's for non-payment of AT&T long-distance charges, in cases involving disputed charges, where AT&T believed the disconnection was unwarranted. Most customer's (90%) want single statement billing for all their telecommunications and information services. Why should B&C be done solely by the RHC's? Most of my monthly phone bill is made up of long-distance charges. Why can't B&C be done by the long-distance companies, other telecommunication service provders, or third parties? Instead of being billed by the local telephone company for your phone bill, you would be billed by the long distance company who would also collect the money for local service. Competition and standardization should be mandated for the B&C business. Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ Reply-To: "LINCS Area Code Information" From: Linc Madison Subject: 1-800-COLLECT's Espanol Counterpart Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:21:49 -0500 It seems that telecom companies are now branching out across the language barrier in search of new prey. MCI's 1-800-COLLECT now has a Spanish-speaking counterpart, in the form of a catchy 30-second musical commercial. It features 1-800-2 26-27-27, and apparently features 'special' domestic collect rates, as well as collect rates to Mexico, and other parts of Latin America. Of course the rates aren't mentioned, just the catchy tune & number combination, along with the "1-800-226-2727 COLLECT" logo. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:57:12 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Signaling Types (was Re: What was SS6, SS5, etc...) Nathan Duehr wrote: > I've got a nagging question. If we have Signalling System 7, what > were SS6, SS5, SS4, etc? Were there ever such standards? Were they > just inband T1 signalling in some cases, or what? I'm just a young'un, > so someone fill me in! Prior to SS7, in the US/NANP, there was CCIS, Common Channel Interoffice Signaling. It was similar to the ITU's CCITT #6 signalling. (CCITT _was_ the abbreviation for the Telephone and Telegraph standards division at the ITU). Just like SS7, CCITT #6 (used on overseas/international trunks) and AT&T/Bell's CCIS was out-of-(voice)-band method of signaling, using digital data signaling links and nodes, and could be used to access databases for billing purposes (calling cards and billed number screening), routing/translations controls and updates, etc. But SS7 has improved data speed and signaling message flexability. CCIS was used in the US starting in the mid-1970's and continuing through the late 1980's. Prior to CCITT #6 and CCIS, there was CCITT #5 (for overseas and international), and AT&T/Bell domestic MF Keypulsing. Both were inband MF (Multi Frequency) tone signaling, similar to DTMF touchtone signaling, but using a different set of frequencies. The MF pairs were used to indicate the digits dialed, and also could be used to send the calling/billing number as ANI. Both CCITT #5 and AT&T/Bell's domestic (NANP) MF signaling used the very same set of MF pairs for the ten possible decimal digits, and two 'control digits' - 'Kp(1)' and 'St'. But CCITT #5 also added 'Kp-2', 'Code-11', and 'Code-2'. MF frequency pairs for the latter three were used in the NANP for other functions at a later date, such as TSPS to end-office controls, etc. CCITT #5 also sent its digits over international trunks at higher speeds than AT&T/Bell-System MF signaling over NANP/domestic trunks. During the time of MF-address signaling, supervisory signaling was handled by transmitting over the trunks, a single frequency (SF) in the voiceband. This presence or absence of this single frequency indicated the supervisory state of the call or call attempt, or that a vacant trunk was being seized by one end. Use of MF-address and SF-supervisory signaling in the US/NANP was the main method of signaling between switches beginning in the late 1940's through the 1970's and early 80's. It is probably still in use in some areas. Inband MF-address signaling was first introduced experimentally circa 1940 between selected #1XB local end-offices in Baltimore. The tone used SF-supervisory signaling could also be used to indicate dialpulse digits/addresses when signaling to/from/between step-by-step offices, since a dialpulse is a very-short on-hook supervisory state. Other countries, prior to adapting SS7, have had their own domestic signaling standards over the years. Some of them have been called R1, R2, E1, E2, etc. In one of the signaling standards, each digit is sent one at a time, with the far-end sending back a corresponding 'digit received' tone, a differing tone for each digit. On connections between manual operator cord-boards, with absolutely no automated switching between them, signaling is simply an electrical current to light or extinguish a lamp to indicate the supervisory state, or in longer distances, the operator on one end had to manually ring the operator on the other end, to set up or take down a connection. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:59:36 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Netizens", Michael Hauben/Ronda Hauben BKNTIZNS.RVW 970809 "Netizens", Michael Hauben/Ronda Hauben, 1997, 0-8186-7706-6, U$28.95 %A Michael Hauben hauben@columbia.edu netizens@computer.org %A Ronda Hauben rh120@columbia.edu ronda@umcc.umcc.umich.edu %C 10662 Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314 %D 1997 %G 0-8186-7706-6 %I IEEE Computer Society Press %O U$28.95 +1-714-821-8380, +1-800-CS-BOOKS fax: +1-714-821-44010 %O cs.books@computer.org c.baltes@computer.org %O http://www.computer.org %P 344 %T "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" This volume is a collection of essays by the two authors, written over the past four years. The papers are grouped into four sections that can be roughly described as present, past, future, and theory. The pieces are heavily endnoted, and provide an extensive bibliographic resource. I find the social aspects of technology even more fascinating than the systems themselves, so I was very eager to read this text. It was a great disappointment. The book is unfocussed and undisciplined. The introduction states that the "goal of this book is to provide needed perspective, to make it possible to understand what impact the Net has had on the present and can have on the future of our society." But it doesn't provide any perspective, just a mass of raw data. The target audience is not defined; netizens will find this material trite, poorly analyzed, and repetitive, while the non-netted will not be able to judge, or in some case, understand, the points being asserted. Much of the content is redundant. There are two general "histories" of the Usenet: one in part one, and another in part two. There are two essays on politics and the net: one in part three, and another in part four. The book is strictly limited to Usenet, on the one hand, while on the other, it includes histories of ARPA, UNIX, and the effect of the printing press. Overall, the writing manages to be quite astonishingly dull. Obviously, the authors have done a tremendous amount of historical research. The references in the book are valuable. But the text, itself, comes off very poorly when compared with "The Internet Systems Handbook" (cf. BKINTSYS.RVW), or Peter Salus' works, "Casting the Net" (cf. BKCSTNET.RVW) and "A Quarter Century of UNIX" (cf. BKQRCNUN.RVW). (None of these books managed to make it into the bibliography.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNTIZNS.RVW 970809 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca BCVAXLUG Admin Chair http://peavine.com/bcvaxlug/ DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security groups [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ronda Hauben has been a correspondent here for several years, and has shared portions of her book with us as it was being written. I am rather disappointed in the poor review given her work by Rob Slade, and if Ms. Hauben wishes to respond I'll be glad to publish her comments here. PARTAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #19 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 27 12:42:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA27275; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:42:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:42:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801271742.MAA27275@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #20 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jan 98 12:42:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #117, January 26, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Sprint and Calling Card Calls and Other Stuff (Joseph Norton) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Roy Smith) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Michael E. Costello) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Roy A. McCrory) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Randall H. Smith) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Michelle Durbin) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (moe@nospam.com) Re: What was SS6, SS5, etc etc... (Al Varney) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:40 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #117, January 26, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 117: January 26, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Blames Stentor for LD Failure ** MTS Cuts Jobs Another 10% ** ShadowTel Must Pay LD Contribution ** ADSL on Move in West MTS SaskTel Telus BC Telecom ** Microcell Tops 60,000 Subscribers ** BC Tel Mobility Gains in New Subscribers ** Three Arrested for Cellphone Scam ** Hearing Set on NBTel Cable Application ** Nordicity Merges with Coopers & Lybrand ** Rogers, Videotron, Cogeco Order Digital Set-Tops ** Shaw Sells Messaging to Commstar ** 12,000 Ice Storm Trouble Reports on Bell Lines ** Fundy Goes Private ** AT&T (U.S.) to Cut 15,000 Jobs ** Financial Results BC Telecom Cancom Shaw Videotron ** How the Internet Is Shaking Up Telecom ============================================================ AT&T BLAMES STENTOR FOR LD FAILURE: In a January 14 letter to customers, AT&T Canada LDS President Bill Catucci writes that AT&T's January 9 LD network failure resulted from loss of System 7 signaling between AT&T Canada and Bell Canada's networks. According to Catucci, all of AT&T's equipment "functioned correctly, even during the failure period," and service was restored "after removal of a piece of equipment from the Stentor network." No other details have been released. MTS CUTS JOBS ANOTHER 10%: Manitoba Telecom Services is cutting another 350 positions, about 10% of its work force. (See Telecom Update #68) MTS warns of bigger cuts if the CRTC does not vary its December ruling giving the telco a local phone rate increase of only 35 cents. SHADOWTEL MUST PAY LD CONTRIBUTION: On January 23, the CRTC ruled that long distance service providers which use the Internet to carry customers' calls must register as resellers and pay the same fees as other LD carriers. Telecom Order 98-28 rejects an application by Ontario-based ShadowTel Communications for an exemption from contribution payments. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o9828_0.txt ADSL ON MOVE IN WEST: ** MTS: CRTC Telecom Order 98-20 tells the Manitoba telco to unbundle elements of its ADSL service that alternate providers need in order to connect their own ADSL equipment. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o9820_0.txt ** SaskTel: SaskTel has expanded its Sympatico High Speed Internet service, launched in Regina and Saskatoon in 1996, to Moose Jaw and Prince Albert. ** Telus: Telus Planet has introduced an ADSL Internet access package including unlimited connection time in parts of Edmonton, Calgary, and Sherwood Park for $49.95/month. Small business service is $99.95. ** BC Telecom: BC Telecom has launched ADSL service in parts of Vancouver, Victoria, and Kamloops in partnership with Sympatico and 11 other Internet Service Providers. Sympatico's price: $64.95/month. MICROCELL TOPS 60,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Microcell added 43,000 new subscribers in the fourth quarter of 1997, bringing its yearend total to 66,000. Microcell says the results "exceed all expectations" and represent 20% of total growth in the wireless telephony market in areas where it offers service. (See Telecom Update #115) BC TEL MOBILITY GAINS IN NEW SUBSCRIBERS: BC Tel Mobility reports 32,000 new subscribers in the fourth quarter, up 5.9% from last year. At yearend BC Tel Mobility counted 407,000 subscribers, 11,200 of them receiving digital service. THREE ARRESTED FOR CELLPHONE SCAM: Three persons, including a Bell Mobility employee, have been arrested in Toronto for a scam that sold cellphones' serial numbers for use in cloned phones. HEARING SET ON NBTEL CABLE APPLICATION: The CRTC has announced that a public hearing into NBTel's application for a province-wide cable TV license will begin March 30. Deadline for requests: February 2; for comment: March 5. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/hearing/1998/n981_0.txt NORDICITY MERGES WITH COOPERS & LYBRAND: Nordicity Group, the Ottawa-based consulting firm, has merged into the Canadian wing of the worldwide consultancy Coopers & Lybrand International. ROGERS, VIDEOTRON, COGECO ORDER DIGITAL SET-TOPS: Rogers Cablesystems, Videotron, and Cogeco Cable have ordered digital equipment from Scientific-Atlanta for delivery in 1998. The Atlanta-based supplier says its digital set-top box is the only one that will ship this year. SHAW SELLS MESSAGING TO COMMSTAR: Shaw Communications is selling its paging business to Toronto-based Commstar Ltd. for an undisclosed amount. 12,000 ICE STORM TROUBLE REPORTS ON BELL LINES: Bell Canada says that reports of trouble on customer lines as a result of the ice storm have been reduced to about 10,000 in Quebec and 2,000 in Ontario. FUNDY GOES PRIVATE: Fundy Communications is redeeming all its publicly-held voting shares while receiving a $50 Million private placement from the New Brunswick Investment Management Corporation, the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, and the Harvard University endowment fund. AT&T (U.S.) TO CUT 15,000 JOBS: AT&T Corp. will announce today that it plans to cut at least 15,000 of its present workforce of 128,000. FINANCIAL RESULTS: The following results are for the quarter ended November 30. ** BC Telecom: BC Telecom's 1997 net income was $283 Million (up 21%), on total revenues of $2.75 Billion (up 9.4%). ** Cancom: Canadian Satellite Communications reports net income of $2.0 Million, double last year's level. Revenue rose 47% to $32.8 Million. ** Shaw: Net income of Shaw Communications was $6.4 Million, up from $4.2 Million last year. Revenue rose 16% to $192 Million. ** Videotron: Videotron's revenue in Canada rose to $163 Million, a 48% increase. A net loss of $5.3 Million was recorded, down from $10.4 Million last year. HOW THE INTERNET IS SHAKING UP TELECOM: Ian Angus's special report on the Internet and world telecommunications, first published in issue #150 of Telemanagement (November-December 1997), is now available on the Angus Telemanagement Web site at http://www.angustel.ca/reports/inet.html ** Issue #150 also included an analysis of telecom and the Internet by Dr. Pekka Tarjanne, head of the International Telecommunications Union, and reports on the present state of ADSL service in Canada and on Internet transmission by satellite. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: jnorton@vol.com (Joseph Norton) Subject: Sprint and Calling Card Calls and Other Stuff Date: 24 Jan 1998 20:55:03 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 1998-01-19 craig@rmit.EDU.AU(CraigMacbride) said: > Sprint allows credit-card calls from some hotels. (I've done it.) > However, they don't allow it from general phones, or from other > hotels. Also, their operators and their supervisors will deny that > it happens anywhere at all!! I don't know about the present, but, I seem to remember a few years ago that Sprint had a different pic code (10252) that was specifically used by the "hospitality" market. It used totally different operators (and the originating switch was different) from the regular Sprint network. I don't know about the present, though, because I just tried using the 10252 code with a 0 plus number and got the standard Sprint messages. Of course, this may be because my local phone company is Alltel and they may not have everything programmed correctly. Speaking of 10XXX codes, where can I find a more current source for the various LD Carrier access codes besides the one in the Telecom Archives? Thanks in advance! Joseph (Joe) Norton Dalton, Georgia, U.S.A.--The Carpet Capital of the World! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That particular section of the archives is out of date and needs updating, I must admit. If someone has a newer version of the carrier codes file perhaps they will kindly pass it along. PAT] ------------------------------- From: Christopher_Herot/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Christopher Herot) Reply-To: herot@lotus.com Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:01:36 -0500 Subject: Hunting vs. Call Answering I have two POTS lines at home, with hunting (call forward when busy) from one line to the other. I've found this free service infinitely superior to Call Waiting. My wife recently became fed up with our constantly broken answering machine and ordered Call Answering. The Bell Atlantic rep told her we couldn't have both hunting and call answering unless we ordered call answering for both lines, at twice the price. Does anyone know if this is a technical limitation (We are on a DMS-100) or if not, how to social engineer the desired result. Is this the kind of thing that's supposed to be in the tariffs? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:34:49 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Organization: New York University School of Medicine > Ask your telco business office about these features and having them > turned on, and the cost. PAT] Let's see. You can pay for caller ID. You can pay for caller ID blocking. You can pay for caller ID blocker blocking. Talk about inventing your own market! I'm reminded of a Dr. Zeuss story. Something about the greeches with stars on their bellies. Seems there was a community of greeches (or whatever fanciful species name the good doctor had dreamed up for this story) and along comes a guy with a machine which will paste a star on greech bellies, for a buck a belly. After a while, half the greeches have stars and half don't, and factions form. Mommy star-bellied greeches won't let their kids play with the non-star variety, since they are obviously inferior. Eventually everybody has stars, and they need to find some other way to be better, so the same guy starts charging a buck a belly to run them through his latest invention, the star-remover machine. Well, you know the rest. ------------------------------ From: Michael E. Costello Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:57:25 -0500 > We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our > caller ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these > calls are hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm > not sure if they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. > My question is: Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which > will identify these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult > since the caller ID already does that), answers the phone > immediately, and responds with a message informing the caller that > our line does not accept unidentified callers, and if they want to > get through, they need to unblock their number. If there is such a > box, I would like to know about it. Has anyone heard of such a > thing? Tom, I'm afraid that the truth behind your observation is both more innocuous and more insidious than you suspect. First, it is unlikely that the caller is "casing" your house. The calls are almost certainly from telemarketers. Picture a boileroom with hundreds of "telemarketers". Computers are used in conjunction with predictive dialing and statistics to initiate a number outgoing calls calculated to statistically balance live answers with operators coming available from calls that are ending. They want to minimize telemarketer downtime, and error on the side of being rude to the public. Your hangup calls correspond to outgoing telemarketing calls initiated by computer, which are hung up when there is no telemarketer available to actually speak with you. Charming, isn't it? As long as it costs them nothing to waste your time, this practice is likely to continue. This same phenomenon is responsible for the "multiple hello" effect. Don't you find that telemarketing calls are frequently prefaced with several seconds of dead air (Hello? Hello?). This practice alone speaks volumes about the respect that telemarketers have for civility. Michael Costello ------------------------------ From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:15:18 -0700 Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory A very nice summary, Pat! But one related, very annoying issue - out-of-area calls. Is there any practicable way to stop these. In my area (Mountain Bell - US West of New Mexico) virtually all the telemarketers that 'serve' me have the phone company set their CID to out-of-area. Let me know if there is any way to deal with those -- other than ignoring them after racing to the CID box! Regards, Roy A. McCrory (505) 846-6937 "La tierra es del que la trabaja!" mccrory@erebus.fc.dna.mil ------------------------------ From: smithrh@cig.mot.com (Randall H. Smith) Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 26 Jan 1998 15:29:41 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group In article , Thomas J. Huot writes: > We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our caller > ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these calls are > hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm not sure if > they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. My question > is: Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify > these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID > already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a > message informing the caller that our line does not accept unidentified > callers, and if they want to get through, they need to unblock their > number. If there is such a box, I would like to know about it. Has > anyone heard of such a thing? Yes, such devices exist today; check out some of the business telecom equipment suppliers, boxes vary in price from around $150 to over $1000 for more features/lines. I can't remember the name of the company, Phones Direct, Telecom Direct or some such. Let's do a Yahoo ... wait a second ... "Hello Direct" is what I was thinking of: http://www.hello-direct.com I don't think their on-line catalog has all of the items in the paper version, you may have to get the catalog to see the "call management" devices. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several telcos offer a 'block the > blocker' type service where calls sent as 'private' are intercepted > at the telco switch and refused before they even reach you. I've asked Ameritech about that; they wanted to sell me a phone to do this. One other drawback is that 'unknown' calls (usually the telemarketing calls) are not screened. In general, I prefer having the control of such services, not the service provider, as I can make the changes as I want. Randall H. Smith Motorola, Inc. smithrh@cig.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Group Product Information Group Digital Systems Division x2-7707 Arlington Heights, IL USA ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 23 Jan 1998 16:23:12 GMT Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service We used to carry a Indiglo Caller ID box from Colonial Data Technology. It had a "block the blocker" feature which played a prerecorded message for all "private" calls explaining that they need to unblock their number to get through. We no longer carry this product, but it should still be available through Colonial Data. Michelle Durbin Hello Direct 5893 Rue Ferrari San Jose CA 95138-1858 http://www.hello-direct.com 800-444-3556 (800-HIHELLO) X 8192 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only undesirable feature about using CPE (customer premises equipment) to do this job is that your phone line is tied up while the calling party is being treated. At least when it is being handled at the central office level you never even see the call; i.e. your line could be in use when he rings it and he will still go to treatment, he wil not get a busy signal when calling you one time and your recording the next. In theory at least, a malicious person could keep your line tied up by dialing over and over. Let the CO handle it and your line is never even approached. The positive side about CPE here is that you do cause the goofus to waste his money; he gets charged for the call even if all he gets is your recording saying you will not accept the call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: moe@nospam.com Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1998 04:01:25 GMT Organization: none-at-all Reply-To: moe@nospam.com Thomas J. Huot wrote: > they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. My question > is: Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify > these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID > already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a > message informing the caller that our line does not accept unidentified > callers, and if they want to get through, they need to unblock their > number. If there is such a box, I would like to know about it. Has > anyone heard of such a thing? If you can't find a hardware or TelCo solution that fits your needs you could try a CID software package that will just take a PRIVATE caller off/on hook after one RING. Blatant pitch goes to IdentaFone in my sig line :) mailto:mhdykes@thinkage.xcom | preferred email - remove "x" http://www.golden.net/~identfon | IdentaFone: Caller ID software ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: What was SS6, SS5, etc etc... Date: 21 Jan 1998 15:42:11 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Nathan Duehr wrote: > I've got a nagging question. If we have Signalling System 7, what > were SS6, SS5, SS4, etc? ITU-T document Q.7 has a summary of SS6, SS5, SS4, R1 and R2. History - "... the following signalling systems have been standardized and are applicable for general use in international automatic and semi-automatic working: - Signalling System No. 4, standardized by the CCIF in 1954; (Q.120-139) - Signalling System No. 5, standardized by the CCITT in 1964; (Q.140-164) - Signalling System No. 6, standardized by the CCITT in 1968; (Q.251-297) - Signalling System No. 7, standardized by the CCITT in 1980; (Q.700- ... the following signalling systems have been standardized and are applicable for regional use in international automatic and semi-automatic telephone working: - Signalling System R1 (Regional Signalling System No. 1, formerly called the North American System), standardized by the CCITT in 1968; (Q.310-332) - Signalling System R2 (Regional Signalling System No. 2, formerly called the MFC Bern System), standardized by the CCITT in 1968 " (Q.400-490) Tech. summary -- SS4 was an in-band system, handling one-way trunks only, using 2 voice-band frequencies either singly (for binary-coding of address digits) or in combination followed by 1 or 2 tones for line signaling (seizure, answer, clear-forward, etc.). Each forward or backward signal was acknowledged. Address digits were a sequence of 4 tones (each tone 35 ms long followed by 35 ms silence), encoding the BCD equivalent of the digit or a special operator code. So each digit took about 280 ms to send, and required an acknowledgement signal. Rather slow. As far as I know, SS4 is no longer used. SS5 is basically in-band MF, (supports 2-way trunks), using 2 voice-band frequencies for line signaling and MF (2-out-of-6 frequencies) for address digits. Similar in many ways to R2. R1 is basically the North American MF system. SS5 (unlike SS4) worked over satellite circuits, and also replaced SS4 on all undersea cables. On digital circuits, the voice-band line signaling has typically been replaced with robbed-bit (R1) or out-of-band signaling. SS6 is an early common channel signaling system, using 2400 baud analog synchronous modems (and digital signals later) to send 28-bit signal units (20 bits data, 8 check bits) in blocks of 12 signal units (SU). The last SU in each block is an acknowledgement of the last received block. To signal messages such as IAMs requiring more than 20 data bits, a "multi-unit" mechanism is used. With only 11 bits to identify both the far-end switch and the circuit, up to 2048 trunk circuits can be supported by each signaling link -- but switches may use several signaling links. In effect, trunks are allocated to a specific signaling link. Routing is based on a 7-bit "band" which is used by STPs along with the incoming signaling link ID to determine the outgoing signaling link. Receiving switches use the incoming signaling link ID plus the band plus the 4-bit circuit number to identify the desired trunk. (International SS7 uses a 14-bit point code to identify destinations independent of the signaling link, and a 12-bit circuit identifier, limiting switches to 4096 trunks to any other given switch, regardless of the number of signaling links.) CCIS (Common Channel Inter-office Signaling) was an AT&T/North American version of SS6, in service from 1976 to about 1996. The only major difference between CCIS and SS6 was a larger band number (9 bits), allowing 8192 trunks to be supported by each signaling link. A similar rationale explains why the North American version of SS7 has 24-bit (vs. 14) point codes and a 14-bit (vs. 12) circuit identifier -- allowing 16,384 circuits between any two switches. Al Varney ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #20 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 27 16:39:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA14809; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:39:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:39:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801272139.QAA14809@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #21 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jan 98 16:38:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Getting Hits", Don Sellers (Rob Slade) Can SS7 be Carried in Frame-Relay? (Patrick Coghlan) Antenna Construction Freeze (Todd Boyle) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Edward Kern) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? (Jonathan I. Kamens) Re: Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? (Steve Bagdon) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Adam H. Kerman) Call Block by Number (was Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls)(G. Rapp) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:12:04 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Getting Hits", Don Sellers Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKGETHIT.RVW 970817 "Getting Hits", Don Sellers, 1997, 0-201-68815-8, U$19.95/C$32.00 %A Don Sellers don@zap.com donsellers@aol.com %C 2414 6th St., Berkeley, CA 94710 %D 1997 %G 0-201-68815-8 %I PeachPit %O U$19.95/C$32.00 510-548-4393 fax: 510-548-5991 416-447-5101 %O markj@aw.com trish@peachpit.com gary@peachpit.com %P 178 %T "Getting Hits: The Definitive Guide to Promoting Your Website" The overwhelming majority of books on the business use of the Internet see the net primarily as a means of advertising. The "politically correct" form of net advertising is the Web page. Web pages are acceptable advertising because they are passive -- the user has to make the request to link to a page, rather than being forced to deal with it like spam on email or newsgroups. The Web page does, though, have one significant drawback: the user has to find it. Most net commerce books now do recognize this point, and may have a chapter or two on promoting your promotional material. "Getting Hits" is *only* about pushing your Web site. The coverage compared with the topic is quite complete: sometimes depressingly so. Seasoned internauts may not be thrilled at the tips designed to fool search sites, but Sellers does, at least, make the token gesture of not recommending their use -- and notes that some search engines will eliminate your listing if you use such tricks. The book does seem to have an overall bias towards commercial advertising, but there are some pointers for use by those who have more time than money available. The book provides good references for promotional resources. (One caveat is that the contact listings are *only* online; mostly Websites; even for print media and other offline ventures.) However, the text could have been even thinner than it is. Many entities are described four times or more, sometimes with little new information being added. Some of this repetitive material can be attributed to two additional authors for five of the chapters, but it is still annoying for the reader. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKGETHIT.RVW 970817 ------------------------------ From: pcoghlan@magma.ca (Patrick Coghlan) Subject: Can SS7 be Carried in Frame-Relay? Date: 27 Jan 1998 09:35:57 -0500 Organization: Magma Communications Reply-To: pcoghlan@magma.ca.noSpam What kinds of facilities (FR etc.) can be used to carry SS7 traffic? Thanks in advance. Pat Coghlan Note: Remove 'noSpam' to reply via e-mail ------------------------------ From: tboyle@aa.net (Todd Boyle) Subject: Antenna Construction Freeze Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1998 17:50:08 GMT Organization: Alternate Access Inc. Kirkland WA. has been under a freeze of new cellular antenna permits for more than 6 months. Here is some general background: I attended the Wireless Task Force meeting Wed. Jan 21 in Kirkland City Hall. The WTF seemed to be composed of approx. 10 people plus Nancy Cox, City of Kirkland Planning Supv. Subjective comments follow: The meeting ran from 7:00 to 9:30 with much toing and froing about how big a tower needs to be, and how big the equipment cabinet needs to be. ATT Wireless and Western Wireless or Sprint employees were present. A consultancy calld the River Oaks Communication Corp. presented an excellent but rather bland overview of PCS, Cellular, line of sight, frequencies, the 1996 telecomms reform, etc. There was rather little information content in the meeting, other than descriptions of other cities' regulations, which might provide Kirkland some ideas in managing antenna construction. The model statutes were not distributed during the meeting however. (apparently they are *quite* varied.) The WTF members included at least two officials from Houghton neighborhood, who constituted the dominant personalities at the table. I would stand by this as an objective assessment, based on microphone time, and number of interruption of other speakers, and number of times changing the subject of the discussion. Kirkland was birthplace of McCaw Cellular (Now ATT Wireless) and is now the home of http://www.teledesic.com/ -- but the Houghton contingent seemed the most inclined toward blocking and limiting antenna construction in various ways. They made several requests for further information from the telecomms industry staffers: * surveys of emerging technology alternatives that offer smaller footprint or lower tower height, * requests to visit existing antennas and examine inside the equipment cabinets, * requests for proprietary info. such as where they plan to apply for future sites, * requests for projected size of the Kirkland market, and other projections All this was requested to help the WTF forecast how many towers would be likely to be requested in future years, and what they might look like, which is reasonable enough, I guess. ATT wireless said it would be ahem, awkward to disclose some of this stuff ... The impression I got was -- * At the initial stages of any new wireless service, providers need to begin with large coverage areas, due to their internal economies of scale in marketing/technical support and due to customer requirements for roaming or wide coverage. * The wide coverage can be achieved most cheaply by a few tall towers. That is a fact of life, especially in communities where low, locally situated towers are resisted even more strongly than tall towers up in the trees. * It is also possible to provide wide coverage with a quite numerous antenna sites on top of buildings, etc. throughout the city, but this costs more. * each tower can handle a fixed limited number of users. After that, it is highly likely they will need more towers. But the new towers would be smaller and smaller, and more localized, as time goes by. * Finally and this is just my impression, even if towers are blocked completely, the telcos will certainly go forward with smaller rooftop and utility pole antennas. But they won't do that unless Kirkland rejects their applications for the taller towers up in the trees. And the customer would pay higher rates. And fewer companies could compete. There was no discussion of the entire "cost" side of the equation: the impact of regulation in reducing Kirkland's supply of telephone service, reducing the number of competitors who could afford the legal delays, and driving up the cost to the consumer. I got an impression the WTF as czars, reallocating the resources of society, and making various social choices for us. They take money away from telecomms users, and spend it to beautify their neighborhoods. This social choice inhibits the growth of small business data services, which impacts on the whole information infrastructure of the community, causing increased vehicle traffic and other economic waste. In other words, you'd have to be nuts, to try to operate a wireless business in Kirkland. Due to the WTF's inability to make rules timely, Kirkland is steered by default towards the unlovely model of mega-telephone companies and state regulated utilities, which has resulted in higher costs and lower quality data services for everybody... Ya gotta wonder whether the big telcos intentionally applied for 10,000-foot towers to stall the whole thing. Gasp! That's unheard of, planning two moves ahead ... --lets not forget why ATT bought McCaw in the first place!! (etc.etc. rant rant! sorry for the opinions! ) * Todd F. Boyle CPA tboyle@aa.net * Accounting Systems Integration www.aa.net/~tboyle * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107 * co-moderator biz.comp.accounting ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:25:43 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) was good enough to point out the following nformation from the www.fcc.gov site: > [retrieved from www.fcc.gov, 11 January 1998] > THE FCC, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND ACCESS CHARGES > This fact sheet offers informal guidance on an issue that has > generated a great deal of public interest. For more specific details > about the proceedings currently before the Commission, please visit > our web site (http://www.fcc.gov/). > _________________________________________________________________ > . . . > As part of its Access Reform proceeding, CC Docket 96-262, the FCC in > December 1996 sought comment on the treatment of ISPs and other > "enhanced service providers" that also use local telephone companies' > facilities. Since the access charge system was established in 1983, > enhanced service providers have been classified as "end users" rather > than "carriers" for purposes of the access charge rules, and therefore > they do not pay the per-minute access charges that long-distance > companies pay to local telephone companies. > In the Access Reform Order, FCC 97-158, adopted on May 7, 1997, the > FCC concluded that the existing rate structure for ISPs should remain > in place. In other words, the Commission reaffirmed that ISPs are not > required to pay interstate access charges. > . . . > Q: How does the FCC regulate the rates that local telephone companies > charge to ISPs? > A: ISPs purchase local phone lines so that customers can call them. > Under FCC rules, enhanced service providers ISPs are considered "end > users" when they purchase services from local telephone companies. > Thus, ISPs pay the same rates as any other business customer, and > these rates are set separately in each state. By contrast, > long-distance companies are considered "carriers," and they pay > interstate access charges regulated by the FCC. Please contrast the above with the following information which comes from the Bell Atlantic Net web page FAQ which is at URL: < http://www.bellatlantic.net/faqs/index.html#gsp >. GSP stands for Global Service Provider. GSPs are companies which provide connections directly to the Internet -- a service that Bell Atlantic cannot provide to its customers in its region at this time. Other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charge for long distance data carrier (GSP) service but their charges are often incorporated into their monthly service fee. Bell Atlantic gives you a choice of Global Service Providers, and separates their pass-through charges from our service charges because communications over the Internet have been ruled a long-distance service. Until Bell Atlantic receives approval to enter the long-distance market in our 7-state region, you will be asked to choose a GSP as your "long distance" Internet carrier for Internet connections. So, which is it: are internet communications providers classed as "enhanced service providers" as the FCC states -- or are is it that "communications over the Internet have been ruled a long-distance service" as Bell Atlantic tells us? I interpret the passive voice "have been ruled" to mean that Bell Atlantic would like us to believe that this has been ruled by the FCC. But it sure looks like "communicaitons over the internet" have been clearly ruled *NOT* to be a long-distance service by the FCC. Possibly Bell Atlantic meant to say that Bell Atlantic has ruled that such services should be treated as long-distance service and remains miffed that the FCC has not agreed. (I concede that Bell Atlantic may be proscribed from offering some services under other restrictions concerning the RBOCs and datacomm services, if those restrictions are still in effect. But the "long distance service" comments seems disingenuous at best.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:03:05 -0500 From: Edward Kern Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs > If you get a chance, listen to the message before it gets changed, and > post your thoughts here. Remember that 800-647-NEWS is intended for > *internal* use by BA employees, and is not an official media source > for news from the company. Interesting ... If I dial that number from any of my lines at work or home (all Bell Atlantic lines), I get a recording that says "You have reached Bell Atlantic's voice messaging service. To leave a message, please enter the complete telephone number of the person you are calling." If I dial this number through my LD carrier's calling card (which does not provide CID to the receiver, and comes in from outside BA territory), I get the BA News that you spoke of. Nice of them to block us. Edward Kern (dag@soulfood.org) The Soulfood Group ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:45:13 GMT In article , jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us says ... > Alas, it's not in that court's jurisdiction. > This was dealt with last year, and the FCC apparently feels it has the > right to reserve jurisdiction on the topic of access fees, and this is > what I sent to all my correspondents on the topic: The FCC has ruled. Their web site posting is accurate. HOWEVER, the 8th Circuit claims jurisdiction over all Telecom Act cases, by some prior agreement of the circuits. Bell Titanic has apparently decided to bring their "modem tax" proposal there. It's sometimes called "venue shopping", hoping that some court somewhere will agree. The FCC is engaged in numerous battles with the 8th, whose main activity as of late seems to have been to overturn everything the FCC has said. If the FCC ruled that Tuesday followed Monday, the 8th might decide that Tuesday goes first. It's typically framed as a "states' rights" issue, based on ambiguity in the Telecom Act. It's quite a stretch to bring in this issue, and if the court rules for Bell it'll immediately be appealed and enjoined, but it could potentially drag on. Perhaps Bell thinks that the 8th can revive that dead horse by beating on it some more. 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the papers today, an article says the same court has made some ruling regards 'local competition' and that that, as Fred suggests, the entire thing is now going to be passed to the Supreme Court. The {Chicago Tribune} this morning said the 'entire telecommunications act' will be reviewed by the court. The paper noted this means local competition will, for all intents and purposes , be postponed 'at least another year or more ...' PAT] ------------------------------ From: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? Date: 27 Jan 1998 12:34:59 GMT Organization: Jik's Linux box In article , Ian writes: > Are we out of options here? Reply in the newsgroup please as my > address has been de-spammed. I have what I believe are useful comments to make about your question, bit I refuse to engage in dialogue on the Usenet with people who make it impossible for me to send them E-mail. Such conduct is antithetical to the spirit of the Usenet. As much as I hate the tactic of putting bogus return addresses in postings, I can understand it. I cannot, however, understand why people must post messages without any indication whatsoever of their return address. There are ways of putting your return address in your postings that the spammers won't detect, you know. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If there is any solution to the growing problem of spam, I have yet to find it. Shaming them does no good; harassing them on the phone via their 800 numbers seems to help a little but there is not nearly enough of a concerted effort to make that effective; taking them to court is a long, very drawn-out and expensive process. I've thought about using only the writer's name with articles -- omitting the email address entirely -- but as is noted above, that really is not the in the spirit of how things should go on the net. I've also considered offering a remail/mail forwarding service only for people whose messages have appeared here, and then only for a limited period; perhaps five or six days following the appearance of their message here. I can tell you the software I am using, while perfectly adequate in the 1980's, is less than sufficient for the net as we know it today. I've a lot of things I've thought about doing here, but when I am totally unable to keep up with the volume of incoming mail and have an archives in need of much updating, there is no real time to spend working on updating and modernizing the whole process. :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:15:18 -0500 From: Steve Bagdon Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net Subject: Re: Telco Says No Copper Anywhere? The 'from:' has 'nospam', and there's no sig. Do you have an archive of the original, so we know who to send a reply to directly? Thanks! Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have nothing on it except what you saw. I guess if you want, answer it here in the Digest. Have you tried to find out if 'nospam' is a valid user-name at that site? Maybe mail addressed that way goes to someone there. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 27 Jan 1998 11:42:54 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , wrote: > Thomas J. Huot wrote: >> Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify >> these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID >> already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a >> message informing the caller that our line does not accept >> unidentified callers, and if they want to get through, they need to >> unblock their number. > If you can't find a hardware or TelCo solution that fits your needs > you could try a CID software package that will just take a PRIVATE > caller off/on hook after one RING. Perhaps such devices need override codes. There can be payphones or PBX's that are misconfigured to block CLID on outgoing calls. This would prevent you from checking your own messages on your answering machine! ------------------------------ From: George Rapp Subject: Call Block by Number (was Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls) Organization: Novia Internetworking - Omaha, NE Date: 26 Jan 98 18:56:34 GMT PAT wrote: > Another service offered by telcos is known as 'call screening' and > this allows you to set up a group of numbers from which you do not > wish to recieve calls at any time. In addition to being 'reactive' and > adding the (unknown) number of the 'last call received' you can also be > pro-active and add in advance numbers you know about -- from almost > anywhere in the country -- that you'd rather not talk to. Here in US Weird territory, the "Call Block" service only can be applied to numbers local to me -- I can't add numbers outside of my local service area, even in the same NPA. At least that's what happened to me last fall. A clever 6-year-old friend was visiting Des Moines (NPA 515) and had figured out how to dial long distance to talk to me. Wanting to spare her family the cost of the LD calls, I tried to "block the last calling number" and was told "this number cannot be added to your call block list". Some experimentation yielded the following results (I get all these numbers on my Caller ID): 515/328-XXXX (Des Moines, US West): see above - can't be added 402/488-XXXX (Lincoln - same NPA, different telco): can't be added 402/494-XXXX (Northeast NE, US West): sorry, no can do 402/330-XXXX (west Omaha, different central office): OK, added to list 402/733-XXXX (same CO - in fact, my 2nd line): OK, we can do that. So apparently this feature's range varies - it's legal to add non-local numbers in the Chicagoland area, but not here in Omaha. (BTW, a quick call to the six-year-old's family yielded a spanking, which also effectively stopped the LD calls. 8^) George Rapp EDS - DFAS Electronic Document Management Partnership Postal: DFAS-OM, Attn. EDS, 901 SAC Blvd., Offutt AFB, NE 68113-5680 Phone: 402/232-3446 DSN: 272-3446 Fax: 402/232-3453 gwr@novia.net "Windows is a 'fault-driven' system ..." - Hurricane 2.01 software manual [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not experimented with this for a few years now, but when I tried adding numbers at random from around the USA to see who could be added and who could not be added, I found that (at that time) whoever sent me caller-id could likewise be added to call screening and 'return last call received'. If the caller-id said 'outside' -- meaning the local telco was saying in effect 'we do not know who this is' -- then I could not screen them either before or after the fact. That is, if I tried to do 'block calls from last number which called you' in those cases it would say 'sorry, cannot add that number to your list'. Now I notice from your .signature that you are located at Offutt AFB, so you might want to detirmine if the centrex there on base is set up a little differently than the rest of Omaha. I'd think you should also be able to block anyone you get caller-id on -- even if the caller-id responds 'private' -- at least from a 'regular' central office not connected with Offutt. My experience with trying to add various numbers at random around the USA was that unlike a local block, where the switch responds in an instant with a response 'it has been added' or 'it cannot be added at this time', when trying to add a number to the screening list which was outside the local area, it would take a few seconds longer. It was as if my switch went off to go interogate the distant switch, much as a computer sends a 'ping' to another computer and then responds to the requestor once the other site responds to it. When I tried to add a number that not only was not local, but was in some other part of the USA, it seemed to take 'forever' to get a response. Ten or fifteen seconds of silence before receiving an answer back was common. Many of those distant points could be added, and were in fact added by my switch once it got through communicating with the other end, however long that took. Others could not be added 'at this time'. The really bizzare response however came from those inquiries of places where (when my switch would try to communicate with a distant switch) the connection 'timed out' before the other end responded. In those cases -- and there were only a couple -- maybe twenty seconds would pass in silence then my local switch would reply, "The number you wish to add to your screening list cannot be added *right now*. Please try again in a few minutes ... " And of all the places in Chicago which could be tested, one in particular was odd: 312-855 *always* caused my switch to respond with the 'not right now ... try again in a few minutes' message. No matter what day, or what time of day, 312-855 in the series of numbers from 0000 through about 3900 was never available 'right now ... try again in a few minutes'. For what it is worth, that block of numbers at that time was a bunch of DID trunks behind a centrex which sent 'outside' to caller-id boxes and maybe still does. Those of you with caller-id who get the number/name on long distance calls might want to experiment with this and your local switch to see how it works there. If you are successful at blocking long distance numbers at random be sure to remove the block when you have finished testing. :) And if some local exchange refuses to accept blocks or stalls on returning the information your own CO needs to complete the block, see what sort of special arrangements are in place; ie a large company with lots of special circuits, DID trunks, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #21 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 27 18:09:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA21980; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:09:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:09:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801272309.SAA21980@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #22 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jan 98 18:09:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Eric Ewanco) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Mark Atwood) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Robert Holloman, Jr.) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Dan Seyb) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (ljm3@lehigh.edu) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: How Do They Know It's A Pay Phone? (Jason Argonauta) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Stanley Cline) 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Cliff Scheller) Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? (Walt Daniels) Employment Opportunity: Arabic, Indonesian, Russian Engineers (C. Scholz) Remote Telephone Service (Paul Genovese) Re: AOL Accuses Navy of Tricking it to Get Data (Larry Finch) Carrier ID Codes (John R. Levine) Current Carrier Identification Codes (David M. Kurtiak) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 27 Jan 1998 14:16:00 -0500 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] Meridian sells a very cool phone (which I own) which integrates a digital answering machine, a telephone, and a caller ID box all in one. It has the virtue of doing intelligent things with caller ID information and digital answering. For example, you can assign different numbers to different outgoing message groups and different mailboxes. You can even assign unique greetings to individual calling numbers. I have all my friends assigned to a single mailbox, with a message which can tell them specifically where I am. If I am out for the weekend, I can say that without fearing that someone casing my house will call and get it. You can also record voice tag announcements for callers, and it will play the tag when they call (so you don't have to go through the effort of looking at the display). For those who do not have the Caller ID name option, you can configure names for every known number which it displays in lieu of the number. But about your desired feature. It has a feature I've been employing recently where you can record a specific outgoing message for private callers. Mine says, "Anonymous caller: Please make a note to dial *82 before calling this number. Please identify yourself and your number at the tone, or you may leave a message if you choose." When you enable private caller screening, it picks up the phone on the first ring only for private callers, then plays the private caller message. If the caller calls back with caller ID unblocked, it lets it ring the regular number of times, and if you don't answer, plays the different message assigned either to that person's calling number or to the general outgoing message. (Unfortunately you have to enable private caller screening in order to get it to play the private caller message; otherwise it plays the general message.) The phone has lots of other neat features; of course the answering machine messages are keyed by caller ID name/number/time, so many callers needn't leave any information except a note to return their call, since you already know who they are, their number, and the time they called. You can program it like a voice response system, where callers can hear different messages by keying in one of the touch-tone digits. It can be programmed to dial you at another number and deliver messages when it gets one. It has a speakerphone, a call timer, programmable buttons, hold, release, dialing directory, auto fax switching, remote touch-tone access, intercom/paging capability, up to 30 minutes of digital recording, and lots of obscure but neat features I can't presently remember. The only downside to it is that its digital recording is compressed out the wazoo using a lossy algorithm, which means that you sacrifice a substantial degree of quality. These phones are available from Radio Shack under the Sprint brand name. # __ __ Eric Ewanco # IC | XC eje@world.std.com # ---+--- http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco # NI | KA Framingham, MA; USA ------------------------------ From: Mark Atwood Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 27 Jan 1998 15:05:57 -0500 Organization: Ampersand, Inc. roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > I'm reminded of a Dr. Zeuss story. Something about the greeches with > stars on their bellies. Seems there was a community of greeches (or > whatever fanciful species name the good doctor had dreamed up for this > story) and along comes a guy with a machine which will paste a star on > greech bellies, for a buck a belly. After a while, half the greeches > have stars and half don't, and factions form. Mommy star-bellied > greeches won't let their kids play with the non-star variety, since > they are obviously inferior. Eventually everybody has stars, and they > need to find some other way to be better, so the same guy starts > charging a buck a belly to run them through his latest invention, the > star-remover machine. Well, you know the rest. Dr Seuss. "The Star-Bellied Sneeches" was a parable about racial discrimination and racial pride. It is in the collection "The Lorax and Other Tales", and has been animated and is availabe on video, I think. (The title story "The Lorax", a parable about deforestation, triggered a round of embarrasing litigation and political grandstanding in the US's Pacific Northwest when some school teachers started using it as a reading assignment.) Mark Atwood | Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to zot@ampersand.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed ------------------------------ From: Robert Holloman, Jr. Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:02:18 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: holloman@pobox.com Roy A. McCrory wrote: > A very nice summary, Pat! But one related, very annoying issue - > out-of-area calls. Is there any practicable way to stop these. In my > area (Mountain Bell - US West of New Mexico) virtually all the > telemarketers that 'serve' me have the phone company set their CID to > out-of-area. Let me know if there is any way to deal with those -- > other than ignoring them after racing to the CID box! JunkBusters () has tons of free information on how to get rid of telemarketers. The main thing to remember is always tell them to put your number on their "don't call list." I've been doing that for a few months now and have noticed a marked drop in calls. Ignoring them just causes their computer to continue calling back, sometimes several times a day. It can be fun going through the "anti-telemarketing script" with teledroids, but that gets old after the first few times. Lately, many of my telescum conversations have gone something like this: Me: Hello? Them: Me: Hello? Them: Hello, may I speak with Mr. or Mrs. Robert Holloman please? Me: Please, add, this, number, to, your, DO NOT, call, list. Them: Yes sir, I have added your number to the list. If you have any questions or concerns, please call 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you for your time. Me: Thank you. I don't give 'em a chance to tell me who they are or why they're calling. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Reply-To: d.seyb@telesciences.com Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:15:26 -0500 From: Dan Seyb As an alternative to fighting your local telco, Radio Shack sold a Caller ID box that could be 'told' to reject all private calls. I bought mine about a year and a half ago, but I would imagine they are still available. For whatever it may be worth. dan ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 27 Jan 1998 16:51:11 -0500 In article , Michael E. Costello writes: > We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our > caller ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these > calls are hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm > not sure if they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. > My question is: Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which > will identify these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult > since the caller ID already does that), answers the phone > immediately, and responds with a message informing the caller that > our line does not accept unidentified callers, and if they want to > get through, they need to unblock their number. If there is such a > box, I would like to know about it. Has anyone heard of such a > thing? I got a fancy Sprint phone from RadioShack which has CID plus a bunch of other features. Among them is one which detects a private call and cuts it off after one ring if you set it up that way. So I tried, and discovered that it blocks calls from my daughter's cell phone. Testing, I found it does the same with mine. Apparently it is fairly common that cell phones don't transmit CID. I haven't found a way of distinguishing between them and telemarketers. Al McLennan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Cell phones and telemarketers transmit 'outside' when they call. Persons who block their ID transmit as 'private'. Surely your phone should know the difference, considering how expensive they are (I saw the phone at the Radio Shack near my house recently.) You want to block the privates, not the outsides. And actually, in some places cell phones are now starting to give ID as well. Ameritech cellular service gives caller-id, and has done so for several months. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 23:00:11 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On 21 Jan 1998 05:32:20 GMT, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:00:00 EST, TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: >> Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced >> that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the >> decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free >> ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to >> court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court >> to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of >> traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter >> not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing >> about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The >> rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent >> an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up >> with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say >> they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' > Alas, it's not in that court's jurisdiction. > This was dealt with last year, and the FCC apparently feels it has the > right to reserve jurisdiction on the topic of access fees, and this is > what I sent to all my correspondents on the topic: [snippage about FCC not having open docket on this, which is true] > Basically, the Circuit court would have to overrule the FCC. I'm not > sure they can actually even do that, since the FCC holds inclusive > venue, being a federal, rather than merely circuit, agency, but IANAL. Actually, Bell Atlantic *is* asking the 8th Circuit to overrule the FCC's decision not to impose access charges on ISPs. BA and other companies sought court review of the FCC's access charge decision, and the appeals were consolidated in the 8th Circuit. So the 8th Circuit *does* have jurisdiction to review this decision, but the most it can do is find the FCC's decision unjustified or unlawful and send it back for further proceedings. The court cannot impose access charges on ISPs by itself. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ From: jargonauta@hotmail.com (Jason Argonauta) Subject: Re: How Do They Know It's A Pay Phone? Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:23:35 GMT Organization: The Vellocino Greg Monti wrote: > WorldCom and other carriers identify payphone calls using "info > digits" received from the local phone companies along with the call. > However, the FCC's order recently excused a number of local phone > companies from providing the required "info digits" on all calls. As > a result, WorldCom and other long distance carriers cannot immediatly > identify payphone calls, but the FCC has threatened that WorldCom will > still have to pay for these calls. As an example, one of the info > digits passed from payphones is "07." Since this digit is also used > for other types of phones with restricted lines, and pending further > FCC action, WorldCom will apply the $0.30 payphone surcharge to calls > from these lines. I went to the FCC web site to try to look for a definition of pay phone to no avail. If you go to www.nanpa.org and then to ANI II digits, you would see that pay phones are 27 and 70, and that 07 (Special Operator Handling Required) does not mention pay phone at all. But real life shows that about half the time the info digits for a pay phone are 07. And sometimes non-pay phones, like hotels, also come with 07. So the FCC mandates pay phone compensation (what makes sense), but does not define what a pay phone is, and does not provide a way to know when a call is from a pay phone, nor how to locate the pay phone operator to send him the check. I believe that the FCC should 1. Define what a pay phone is (public use, accept coins...) 2. To receive the compensation make the pay phone operator broadcast the 27 info digit (no compensation for 07) and 3. It should be kept in a NANPA database, where everybody could have access to the information (to send the checks). TransWorld Telecom ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 06:34:49 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com CORRECTION: I wrote ... > AFAICT, Visa simply doesn't want its cards used as a "calling card", > unless it goes through VisaPhone (whose service is provided by MCI) -- ^^^ Nope, it's not MCI -- it's Sprint that provides VisaPhone's network services. I was thinking of American Express, who does use MCI for a similar service. AFAIK, neither MasterCard nor Novus/Discover offer a similar calling card feature. Stanley Cline (IRC:Roamer1).....Telecommunications & Consumer Advocacy Chattanooga & Atlanta..............(no spam!) roamer1[at]pobox[dot]com main web page.......................http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ the payphone page....................http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ ------------------------------ From: Cliff Scheller Organization: http://www.compuquestinc.com Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 07:27:42 -0600 Subject: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? As you all know "800" inbound calls route to ring on "regular" lines. Is anyone aware of a device that can inform the recipient whether the call is arriving as an 800 call or as a call to the regular number? Cliff Scheller cliff@compuquestinc.com "Turn your Pager into a Remote Monitoring System" http://www.compuquestinc.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1998 09:32:12 EST From: dan@watson.ibm.com (Walt Daniels) Subject: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? Looking at NANPA I cannot find anything about phone numbers with # and *. I know the phone companies understand some of them, but which ones? For instance I have two lines at home and one of them was dead for almost two days (unknown problem). So the phone company setup a transfer of the dead number to the working one and told me to hit 73# or maybe it was 76# to cancel the forwarding when the line started working again. Are these kinds of numbers allocated or do they vary by phone company? Are there any reserved numbers that will always be ignored by the phone company, e.g. ##anything? E-mail replys to wdaniels@bestweb.net. This account is only working for another week. ------------------------------ From: Christoph Scholz Subject: Employment Opportunity: Arabic, Indonesian, Russian Engineers Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:05:16 -0500 Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Our company is responsible for telephone application translations for such companies as Motorola, Nortel, Harris and others. Our non-telephony clients include CNN, GTE, Coca-Cola, Rolls Royce, Turner Broadcasting and more. Currently, we are working on a very large prompt script translation for Motorola. The document contains 1,500 prompts/phrases to be recorded in 16 countries. Approximately 20,000 words. We need engineers experienced in telephony who know the newest terminology and vocabulary in those countries to review documents translated by experienced technical translators. For more information on our company, you may visit our website at: http://www.internationalservices.com Please email information on your experience to my private email address: SEReager@aol.com Thank you very much. S. E. Reager, President, International Services ---------------------------- Christoph J. Scholz OCPN (Optical Communications and Photonic Network) Laboratory UCSB (University of California in Santa Barbara) GaTech (Georgia Institute of Technology) http://www.ece.gatech.edu/users/chrischo (404) 894-9919 (phone), (404) 894-8314 (lab), (404) 894-2700 (fax) ------------------------------ From: Paul Genovese Subject: Remote Telephone Service Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:29:27 -0700 Organization: Dimensional Communications Reply-To: genovpw@dimensional.com I knew a guy who lived in a cabin up in the Pacific NW about 40 miles from the nearest copper phone line yet you could call him, the phone would ring, and he'd answer. Now the quality of the transmission was well, kinda like an AM radio broadcast with all kinds of transient noise and such but did the job nevertheless. Anyone have any ideas on what kind of telephone system he had? And, where can I get one? ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: AOL Accuses Navy of Tricking it to Get Data Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:47:20 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Tad Cook wrote: > AOL accuses Navy of tricking it to get data > By Jim Wolf > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Internet service provider America Online > accused the U.S. Navy Wednesday of duping it into disclosing data on a > subscriber now at the center of a wide-reaching privacy lawsuit. > > In a statement, AOL said the Navy "deliberately ignored both federal > law and well-established procedures for handling government inquiries" > and used trickery instead in the case of Senior Chief Petty Officer > Timothy McVeigh. ----------------------snip------------------------- As a followup to this story, AOL later admitted that they should not have give personal information to anyone and that they had violated their own terms of service by doing so. There is a link today on AOL's signon screen to a letter from Steve Case in which he essentially eats crow. Larry LarryFinch@aol.com LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1998 18:30:19 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Carrier ID Codes Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Speaking of 10XXX codes, where can I find a more current source for > the various LD Carrier access codes besides the one in the Telecom > Archives? You go to the source -- visit http://www.nanpa.com. In the bar at the left side of the screen, click the + next to "Number resource info", and in the list that appears, you'll see "Carrier Identification Codes". Click that and you get a page with links to the current lists, sorted in various useful ways. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: David M. Kurtiak Subject: Current Carrier Identification Codes Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:47:28 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That particular section of the > archives is out of date and needs updating, I must admit. If > someone has a newer version of the carrier codes file perhaps > they will kindly pass it along. PAT] Pat: Current carrier identification codes are available directly from the FCC's web site at: "http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Locato r/ldc1q97.pdf" The latest release on their site appears to be from early 1997. Lots of other information such as carrier contact numbers and market share reports are also available at: "http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/ixc.ht ml" Hope this helps! Dave Kurtiak dkurtiak@att.com AT&T, Piscataway, NJ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #22 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 29 09:24:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA00276; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:24:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:24:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801291424.JAA00276@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #23 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Jan 98 09:24:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book on Privacy in Telecommunications (Jud Wolfskill) Telecom News Service (Judith Oppenheimer) Book Review: "PCS & Digital Cellular Technologies" (Rob Slade) Defeating *67 with Omnipoint (Anthony Argyriou) Callback Service From Mexico (Michael Corbett) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Ron Walter) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Russ Landry) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Fred McClintic) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Keith Brown) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Bill Levant) Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? (Ron Walter) Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? (Richard C. Schoeneck) Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? (Linc Madison) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jud Wolfskill Subject: Book on Privacy in Telecommunications Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:20:09 +0000 Organization: MIT Press Reply-To: wolfskil@mit.edu The following is a book which readers of this list might find of interest. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/promotions/books/DIFPHS98 Privacy on the Line The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau Telecommunication has never been perfectly secure, as the Cold War culture of wiretaps and espionage taught us. Yet many of us still take our privacy for granted, even as we become more reliant than ever on telephones, computer networks, and electronic transactions of all kinds. Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau argue that if we are to retain the privacy that characterized face-to-face relationships in the past, we must build the means of protecting that privacy into our communication systems. The development of such protection, however, has been delayed -- and may be prevented -- by powerful elements of society that intercept communications in the name of protecting public safety. Intelligence and law-enforcement agencies see the availability of strong cryptography as a threat to their functions. In fact, the US government has used export control to limit the domestic availability of cryptography, and has made legal attempts to limit encryption to forms that provide a 'back door' for government wiretapping. Diffie and Landau examine national-security, law-enforcement, commercial, and civil-liberties issues. They discuss privacy's social function, how it underlies a democratic society, and what happens when it is lost. They also explore how intelligence and law-enforcement organizations work, how they intercept communications, and how they use what they intercept. Whitfield Diffie, the inventor of public-key cryptography, is Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems, Inc. Susan Landau is Research Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. February 1998 352 pp. ISBN 0-262-04167-7 MIT Press * 5 Cambridge Center * Cambridge, MA 02142 * (617) 625-8569 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Telecom News Service Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:09:52 -0500 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, Daily News Service of Toll Free Industry Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com CONTACT: Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 THE EXPERT WWW SITE RELAUNCH: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry. New York, NY January 27, 1998. While some people may just not give toll-free telephone numbers a second thought, this web site does. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS is the daily news service of the toll free industry. Updated daily and archived indefinitely, it delivers a digestible mix of 800/888/global800 industry and marketplace news, regulatory reporting, and behind-the-scenes gossip, as well as how-to -- and when to -- advice. ICB subscribers rank among the top decision makers in the toll-free and telecom industries; direct marketing and communications worlds; domestic and international regulatory bodies; trade organizations, and business publications. Headlines are emailed to subscribers daily. Additionally, researchers find ICB's searchable archive, the largest publicly available library of toll-free news and information, an invaluable resource. Marketers, telecom and corporate execs, and attorneys alike, rely on the service. "I'm impressed at the level of coverage ICB brings to our industry ... ," says Saul Wilner, President, 1 800 GRANOLA. "ICB TOLL FREE is an important resource for any organization that depends on 800/888 service," echoes Wayne Sachs, Attorney, Los Angeles. Phil White, Operations Support for Trimark Investment Management in Canada, says, "ICB sorts through an unbelievable pile of telecom information and events and tells me what I need to know in an easily understandable fashion." And Rick Rector, Director Business Development for telemarketing firm New England 800 Company, says, "As a former print publisher myself, I am impressed with the breadth and scope of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS." Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Non-subscribers may trial the service for 15 days FREE, receiving unlimited use of ICB's subscribers-only web pages and daily email headlines for 15 days, at no cost or obligation. Trial service requests can be emailed to trial@icbtollfree.com (include name, title, company and email address), or interested parties can register directly at the site, at http://www.icbtollfree.com. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:23:05 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "PCS & Digital Cellular Technologies", Rifaat A. Dayem Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKPCSDCT.RVW 970817 "PCS & Digital Cellular Technologies", Rifaat A. Dayem, 1997, 0-13-616574-5 %A Rifaat A. Dayem %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-616574-5 %I Prentice Hall %O 800-576-3800 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 %O betsy_carey@prenhall.com %P 231 %T "PCS & Digital Cellular Technologies: Assessing Your options" Recently, I was asked to provide more coverage of books dealing with mobile communications, and the emerging technologies therein. I was rather loathe to get deeply into the field, and responded that most such works tended to be dense with equations and studded with graphs of antenna signal strength. Such tomes may be fine for telecommunications engineers, who probably know all of them already, but are less than helpful to the average technical user or manager who needs to gain a general understanding of what is going on and what the issues are. Dayem's book is certainly far from perfect, in that regard, but it is the best general explanation I have seen to date. Written by a knowledgeable and involved participant in the field, it is aimed at the non-specialist audience. The various technologies are explained, and the technical issues and problems are described, usually without recourse to technical arcana. The approaches being taken in different countries and regions are clarified, and a list of manufacturers is given in an appendix. The material is generally readable, practical, and understandable. The technical level, while usually intended for the average reader, is inconsistent. The discussion of propagation and channel fading does get into extensive formulae, although this is mercifully brief. On the other hand, the explanation of CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is a complete failure. Both the glossary and index are very short and have serious shortcomings, especially in view of Dayem's tendency to use acronyms long before they are defined. Mistakes such as "Shanon's Theorem" make even the technically literate wonder if they are missing something. Overall, this is a very useful guide to the features, strengths, and weaknesses of the many new and emerging technologies that telecommunications managers are having to face. Dayem does provide a helpful reference to the spate of new offerings coming to market, and to the alphabet soup accompanying them. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKPCSDCT.RVW 970817 ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Defeating *67 with Omnipoint Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:58:00 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com A pair of articles in the latest {2600 Magazine} mentions that Omnipoint GSM voicemail obtains caller-id information, EVEN IF BLOCKED. When playing back messages, the voicemail will announce the number used to call. Due to a bug/feature, the voicemail will obtain the number even if the caller uses *67, 1167, or has All Call Blocking. This does not use ANI -- the article mentions an experiment using forwarding to verify this. Therefore, someone could set up a number to be call-forwarded to an Omnipoint voicemail for the purpose of harvesting Caller-ID-blocked numbers. Later in the issue (p55), they list the Omnipoint GSM exchanges: 201-349, -486, -757, -873 215-715, -820, -939 302-898 316-990 516-312 609-334, -505, -510 610-202, -203, -504 717-604 908-338 914-336, -320 917-251, -257, -770, -774, -815, -915, -945 The folks at 2600 mention that the system _may_ not capture out-of-state blocked Caller-ID info, based on some experiments they've performed, and give a guide to recognizing Omnipoint voicemail, if you want to try to avoid it. For more info, go buy the zine. Volume fourteen, Number three. Their subscription dept. is at subs@2600.com. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Corbett Subject: Callback Service From Mexico Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:30:51 -0800 I have some friends that are on an extended stay in Mexico. They are having a wonderful time, but Grandma (who did not go) is back in the States pitching a fit. They need a cheap way to make calls from Mexico to the US. Is a callback service the way to go? Any information would be greatly appreciated. I don't get to the Digest nearly as often as I would like, so direct email would also be appreciated. Mike Corbett personal email: mcorbett@halcyon.com Work email: michaelco@bestnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:33:57 -0600 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? Cliff Scheller wrote: > As you all know "800" inbound calls route to ring on "regular" lines. > Is anyone aware of a device that can inform the recipient whether the > call is arriving as an 800 call or as a call to the regular number? To my understanding, there's no signalling that tells you, when a call comes in, whether it was a toll free number that was routed to your phone, or a call made directly to the phone number. However, what you might try, if it is available from your local telco, is distinctive ringing: You can have two numbers ringing into the same line, with a different ring pattern for each number. The independent telco here in Lincoln NE tells me that is not available on any lines that are in a hunting arrangement, and that the cost here is $5 per month. I'm sure costs and capabilities very from one place to another. Anyway, what you might try is having the 800 number ring to the second number. Then, you can either go by the difference in ringing, or there is a device made by Viking that recognizes the distinction and routes the call to the appropriate device (often used for having a separate fax number without getting an extra line). You could use this and hook into a two line phone, so line one rings if it's local, line two if it's an 800 call. If you have multiple lines, then you might have to go to something like using Direct Inward Dialing, provided your phone system has the capability. Ron Walter ronw@capcittel.com Capitol City Telephone, Lincoln NE ------------------------------ From: Russ Landry Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:03:36 -0500 Organization: RoadCall Fleet Communications Reply-To: nospam@gate.net, russ@roadcall.com You might want to check out a service called WorkEasy. They can announce your 800 calls and even add other options like front ending your calls with a voice menu and telling you what selection the caller made. www.workeasy.com Russ Landry russ[at]roadcall[dot]com "Affordable driver tracking and communications" http://www.roadcall.com ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:28:51 -0600 Cliff Scheller wrote: > As you all know "800" inbound calls route to ring on "regular" lines. > Is anyone aware of a device that can inform the recipient whether the > call is arriving as an 800 call or as a call to the regular number? In the standard scenario, there is no way to do it. A ground-start or loop-start line will always ring in the same way (voltage-wise), regardless of how the call got started. I don't know of any CLASS services for this function, and don't see how there could be, as the ANI II digits aren't sent from the IXC to the LEC -- only from LEC to IXC (according to my Bellcore docs). Two possible things you might try, neither of which I've actually attempted, and which might not be feasible for you: If you can have the 800-call come in a DID group, you could allocate one DID number to be used for 800-calls only and give that DID # to the IXC. Since they're just translating the number from toll-free to POTS, I don't see any reason why the number couldn't be DID. If you want a regular loop-start line, you might be able to get distinctive ringing for toll-free calls. Your LEC would have to offer two numbers on the same line with different rings (marketed variously as "Smart Ring" by GTE, "Teen Service" by Nortel, etc), then you could try having the IXC direct the toll-free number to the distinctive-ring DN for that line. Haven't tried either of those in practice, but it's food-for-thought. Fred McClintic | Proud member, Gateway Chapter Telecom Engineer | International SL-1 Users Assn Diemakers Inc. | http://www.islua.org 573-735-4578 ext 2211 | http://www.crl.com/~gcfstl/islua.html Monroe City, Palmyra, & Hannibal Missouri "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us" - Western Union internal memo, 1876 ------------------------------ From: Keith Brown Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:21:21 -0800 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Cliff: There is a way provided by your local phone company. Get a distinctive ring number and use that number to terminate the 800 number with. That way, all 800 calls will have a distinctive ring to them thus distinguishing the 800 call. Otherwise, a regular caller ID unit will not be able to tell the difference. Keith Brown CallCom International - Long Distance Services "Your one stop source for Telecommunications on the Net" http://www.callcom.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:00:05 EST Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Cliff wrote: > Is anyone aware of a device that can inform the recipient whether the > call is arriving as an 800 call or as a call to the regular number? It didn't always work that way ... in the olden days, when only big companies had 800 service (instead of every schmoe on the planet, myself included), the 800 calls would be delivered on separate trunks. In reality, they were just POTS lines, with (secret) POTS numbers assigned (they called them Plant Test Numbers, which was helpful when reporting trouble, considering that they were numbered 800-555-1234, 800-555-1234A -1234B, -1234C and so on) which could be called if you were friendly with the telco guy and/or learned the number elsewhere. They were class-of-service restricted to prevent outgoing calls, even local. All that said, have you considered distinctive ringing service (called Identa-Ring or some similar name, depending on your LEC), and having the 800 "point" to one number, and giving the other one out as your "local" number? Presto...you can tell the difference (unless someone gets/misdials the "other" local number), and if you get distinctive-ringing-capable stuff (like answering machines, fax/phone switches and so forth) you can even route automatically, based on number called. Bill ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: 800 Line or "Regular" Line? Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:46:58 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Cliff Scheller wrote: > Is anyone aware of a device that can inform the recipient whether the > call is arriving as an 800 call or as a call to the regular number? AFAIK, the closest solution is to order a second number (not line) with "distinctive ring" and have the 800 terminate on _that_ number. (Which, of course, you never give out.) Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:51:23 -0600 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Subject: Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? Walt Daniels wrote: > Looking at NANPA I cannot find anything about phone numbers with # and > *. I know the phone companies understand some of them, but which > ones? For instance I have two lines at home and one of them was dead > for almost two days (unknown problem). So the phone company setup a > transfer of the dead number to the working one and told me to hit 73# > or maybe it was 76# to cancel the forwarding when the line started > working again. Are these kinds of numbers allocated or do they vary > by phone company? Are there any reserved numbers that will always be > ignored by the phone company, e.g. ##anything? I don't know of any numbers with # or * in them. The pound (#) and star (*) buttons are basically utility buttons used by equipment such as voice mail and phone systems for specific purposes. Call forwarding or cancelling call forwarding through the phone system fits within this catagory. Usually a voice mail system uses these buttons as a way for a caller to say they are done recording a message, a way to get into your mailbox to check messages, things of this nature. If the pound or star button were ever included as part of a phone number, this would really mess up some phone and voice mail systems. In particular, an automated system that asks you to enter your phone number. If your phone number is 555#12*, after the 555, on many systems the # would tell the system you are done entering numbers and go on to some other function. Ron Walter ronw@capcittel.com Capitol City Telephone, Lincoln NE ------------------------------ From: Richard C. Schoeneck Date: 28 Jan 98 19:30:50 Subject: Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and * > Looking at NANPA I cannot find anything about phone numbers with # and*. > If you go to www.nanpa.org and then to ANI II digits, you would see ^^^ If you did like I did and cut and pasted from Jason's original message you will end up at the North American Nature Photography Association (www.nanpa.com) but www.nanpa.com is more like what we are looking for North American Numbering Plan.^^^ ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Who Allocates Numbers With # and *? Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:59:30 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , dan@watson.ibm.com (Walt Daniels) wrote: > Looking at NANPA I cannot find anything about phone numbers with # and > *. I know the phone companies understand some of them, but which > ones? For instance I have two lines at home and one of them was dead > for almost two days (unknown problem). So the phone company setup a > transfer of the dead number to the working one and told me to hit 73# > or maybe it was 76# to cancel the forwarding when the line started > working again. Are these kinds of numbers allocated or do they vary > by phone company? Are there any reserved numbers that will always be > ignored by the phone company, e.g. ##anything? The codes you are referring to are "vertical service codes." There is more information about them on the NANPA website at: The standard is that these codes should be dialed as either *xx[x] or 11xx[x], but GTE (and a few other companies?) decided to implement them on the touchtone side as xx[x]# instead. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #23 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Feb 2 00:01:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA22659; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:01:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:01:29 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802020501.AAA22659@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #24 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Feb 98 00:01:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pay-phone Calls to Get Up-Front Pricing (Tad Cook) AT&T Being Overly Selective About Credit/Calling Cards (Chris Farrar) Cyberpromo Goes to MCI/the UK?? (John Cropper) FCC and Surcharge Complaints (Ron Walter) 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books (Garrett Wollman) MobileWorld Update - January 1998 (Matthew McDonald) Action Line in the San Jose Mercury News (Tad Cook) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Pay-phone Calls to Get Up-Front Pricing Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:05:04 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Mercury News Wire Services WASHINGTON -- Federal phone regulators, in a move to drive down the cost of long-distance calls placed from hotels and pay phones, decided Thursday to make telephone companies tell consumers up front how much such calls will cost. The new rule involves long-distance calls made from a non-residential phone, where a customer must dial 0 plus the area code and number to make a call. Charges for these "0-plus" calls are the third-largest source of consumer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, averaging about 4,000 complaints a year. Customers often think calls made from a hotel or pay phone will cost about the same as those made from a home phone, and often are surprised to see bills much higher than expected. For instance, one consumer complained to the FCC about being charged $9.58 for a two-minute call. Another was charged $63 for a 40-minute call. The FCC's action does not change what companies charge for such service. But the commission believes the disclosure requirement eventually will pressure companies with high rates to lower them. Behind each pay phone is a company responsible for its service -- from carrying calls to providing operator assistance. Hundreds of companies are in this business, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint. Smaller companies serve hundreds of thousands of phones. Here's how the FCC's plan works: After dialing a long-distance number from a pay phone, hotel phone or other public phone, callers would hear a recorded message giving them the option to get price information. If callers wanted that information, they could press the pound or star key, or stay on the line. Then the company providing service to the phone would disclose the per-minute charges as well as any surcharges. After getting the information, callers could hang up without incurring any charges. If callers don't want price information, they could bypass the message. The new rules take effect July 1. Although callers would not be charged directly for price information, companies will be allowed to pass along to customers any increased costs resulting from complying with the FCC's plan. "The FCC today, instead of targeting the companies that charge rip-off rates, is applying a regulatory solution that will unnecessarily raise costs to the entire long-distance industry," said Rick Bailey, AT&T vice president, federal government affairs. AT&T wanted the FCC to place a ceiling on the rates that the "offending" companies could charge. But others said the action will help consumers by providing them needed information. "It gives consumers the information they need to make a real, informed choice," said FCC Chairman William Kennard. Currently, customers may think they're using their traditional long-distance phone company when making a 0-plus call, said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of Consumers Union. The FCC also voted on a draft proposal that would streamline the agency's rules regarding the Bell companies' ability to offer information services, such as voice mail and electronic mail. Under the proposal, the Baby Bell companies and GTE Corp. no longer would need to seek FCC approval before offering new information services. That would help spur competition, by getting the new services out to the market quicker, Richard Metzger, chief of the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau said. The rules won't become final until after the agency receives public comment on the regulations, and makes any desired changes. ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: AT&T Being Overly Selective About Credit/Calling Cards Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:31:50 -0500 Organization: Bell Solutions AT&T (US) last year ran ads in the major Toronto (Canada) newspapers that 1-800-CALL-ATT was a great way to call friends/relatives in the USA from Canada, and they accepted a Bell Canada Calling Card. The other day, I was trying to call to the US from behind a PBX that blocked access to 0+ calls (which is supposedly legal in Ontario) {you can't even dial "0" to reach an operator}. It did however allow calls to 1-800 numbers. So I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to call from Richmond Hill (Ontario, just north of Toronto) to Hilton Head (South Carolina, just north of Savanaha GA). After punching in my card 905457XXXXYYYY a ringing is heard (rather than the "Thank You for using AT&T") and an "operator" comes on the line: "ATandT" "Calling Card Call" "Card number please" "905457XXXXYYYY" "Its coming up declined. Would you like to bill the call some other way?" Called up the card issuer, Bell Canada, via their "310-BELL" number (a seven digit version of an 800/888 number in Bell Territory). They confirmed that my phone account was in good standing, and that they had no blocks on the use of my card. Why in the world is AT&T declining it? Next time I'm in Niagara Falls/Buffalo NY I'm going to try using the CIC codes for AT&T, Sprint, MCI et al, and see if that will go through. Either AT&T or Bell is lying, but as the card works at Bell payphones for 0+, I'm sure it isn't Bell ... Anyone (Bell Canada or AT&T USA) have an idea? Is it because my home LD is through Bell Canada and not AT&T Canada? Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Cropper From: John Cropper Subject: Cyberpromo Goes to MCI/the UK?? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:31:34 -0500 Just received this, and wonder if they were any relation to their scummy American counterparts in my back yard ... -----Original Message----- From: email@cyberpromouk.net.force9.net To: MAILER-DAEMON@exchange-98.ms.com Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 18:29 Subject: UK Power Data! > Welcome to Cyberpromo UK email marketing services > We provide: > * UK Standalone emailshots > * UK Email address lists > * UK fax marketing database > * UK full data marketing database > *What are Standalone e-mailshots? > A standalone e-mailshot is an email message (your advertisement > or promotion) sent to thousands of recipients. Cyberpromo UK > offer such a mailshot service. We perform standalone mailshots > (cost 490.00) with a guaranteed minimum distribution of 250,000 > to either UK businesses, general UK internet users, or both. All > you need to provide us with is your message, which can be faxed, > emailed or posted to us, and upon receipt of payment, your mailshot > will be performed within seven days. > *What are the advantages / disadvantages of email marketing? > Advantages: Tens of thousands of email messages an hour can be > sent with a marketing message or promotion at, comparatively, very > low cost, using an internet connection, and an email address list. > Compare email with the cost of conventional marketing techniques > like magazine advertising - which rely on a publication's circulation, > or postal mailshots - which require an address list, printing, envelopes, > administration and postage etc., a single piece of postal mail can cost > up to 70 pence to send! > No paper is wasted using email, also, if a recipient doesn't want the > email - they can just hit the delete button, which means email marketing > saves earth's resources and is ecologically and environmentally friendly, > and when correctly implemented, internet marketing is the preferred > future tool for business promotion. Therefore the main advantages of > email marketing are: > Protection of the Environment > Low Cost > Speed > Disadvantages: > Only one: A handful of complaints! A small minority take particular > offence at receiving unsolicited messages or 'spam'. This is understandable > in part, as UCE (unsolicited commercial email) from the US is pandemic, > and most of the 'adverts' are junk, mainly rip-off get rich quick and > multi-level marketing ploys, and once the 'spammers' have your address, > there is usually no way of getting off their lists. > Cyberpromo UK's experience to date has been that the complainant will be > awkward and try to get the sender's email accounts and web pages shut > down, rather than hit the delete button. Saying that, per mailshot of over > 250,000 recipients, we probably only get half a dozen Mr. Angrys as we > have honoured all 'REMOVE' requests we have received to date. > Using state of the art technology, we have collected up to date email > addresses for the UK divided into two main categories - businesses and > general consumers. These email addresses have been collected from all the > main UK service providers, and from every registered .co.uk domain in the > UK. The addresses have then been verified for deliverability, and placed in > our master lists. The data is updated weekly. > Our business email addresses include over 105,000 UK businesses with > an internet presence, and at least one contact address per business. > Our general email addresses are of over 230,000 UK internet users. > *Targeted email address data. > Cyberpromo UK proudly announce our two databases on CD-ROMs > containing fully targeted email address data sorted by US SIC > (standard industry code). UKbase covers approx 105,000 UK businesses, > EURObase covers approx 390,000 European businesses. > *UKemailbase & EUROemailbase CD-ROM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This piece of trash goes on for several more screens -- I've deleted the rest. PAT] > To have your email address removed from this list - simply send an > email to cyber-uk@mci2000.com with REMOVE in the subject line. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sure it must be Spamford or maybe one of his half-witted family members or business associates. He lies about the 'handful of complaints from Mister Angry'. There are millions of complaints -- netters around the world -- angry and totally fed up with spam. Well guys, it appears it is now time to go to work on mci2000.com ... let's get him tossed off of there ASAP and begin letting the admins there know what is likely to happen if they allow cyberpromo to remain as a customer. I have to wonder if anyone has ever collected up a list of several thousand names and fed them all en-masse to one of those 'remove' addresses just to see what happens? Obviously nothing ever actually gets removed, so it won't hurt of one of those 'remove' addresses/scripts gets totally trashed will it? I think as a courtesy I'll start sending my entire mailing list piped to any 'remove' address I find, and Lord knows I get enough spam each day to keep the MIT mailer busy all the time. Trouble with that is, I am not sure if they just ignore it or if they actually take those names and send still more spam. I would not like to be responsible for causing a reader to get still more than he does already. :( Anyway, let's see what kind of disciplinary action can be taken at this point where mci2000.com is concerned. It may not be too late to salvage that ISP and keep them a useful netizen if they receive an example now and have an opportunity to dump the Bozo before the net dumps all over them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 12:00:01 -0600 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Organization: Capitol City Telephone Subject: FCC and Surcharge Complaints In this morning's paper was an interesting article from the AP that the FCC was getting a number of complaints about the charges being passed on by long distance companies for surcharges. The only specific carrier named was MCI. Two particular sections interested me. First: "The FCC says the charges didn't increase the total dollar amount long distance companies pay local companies to connect calls. It just changed the way the charges are assessed -- from a per-minute basis to a per-line basis." Then, after telling a little bit about how MCI was distributing the charge, it quotes an MCI spokesperson: "'This is the best system to apply the charges broadly," Sallet said. Sallet said MCI will not fully recover from its customers the fees it must pay to local phone companies to connect to their networks. He estimated that will cost MCI $350 million this year. "In the next few days, the FCC plans to post on its Web site a consumer fact sheet about the charges, Nakahata (FCC spokesperson) said." My first reaction is, I take issue with the comments from MCI if the part about how the connection charges is true. If I understand correctly, the long-distance companies no longer have to pay the LEC's a per-minute charge, instead they pay a charge based on the number of lines. If MCI is passing on the per-line connection charges to their customer, but not reducing per-minute rates, then I don't see how MCI is doing anything other than increasing their revenue. This whole issue is of particular interest to me. We have a very small long distance resale business and had been using Worldcom as our carrier. A few months ago, we started switching over to a different carrier and by now most of our customers have been moved. Our last bill from Worldcom was for $2,700 of long distance and $2,100 of PIC surcharges. We have, at the most, 55 phone numbers still active with Worldcom, we got charged for 785 lines. What is interesting is that our current provider is not passing on the PIC surcharges. And the way I understand it, they don't end up losing any money (unless you consider not getting the extra money that would have come from the surcharges as a loss). I would be interested to find out if anyone has had similar experience of excessive charges, or any further insight on these charges. I close with a quote from the article. Bill Nakahata of the FCC said "Customers who feel like they've gotten the wrong end of the deal can and should go shopping, because not all carriers are doing the same thing. Consumers have the ability to stop the problem right away." ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books Date: 1 Feb 1998 19:56:32 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science The 617/781 and 508/978 splits officially went mandatory today. By a curious coincidence, my building's 1998 directories were delivered today as well. A few comments on both ... BankBoston (the bank formed last year by the merger of BayBanks and [the First National] Bank of Boston) likes to force its telephone banking customers to pick up local usage charges. To that end, they have obtained the same number, 788-5000, in all three old Massachusetts area codes. I experimented a bit with these numbers today. (For reference, the old 617-788 exchange was in Waltham, and is now 781-788. 413-788 is in Springfield. 508-788 is in Framingham, and remains in 508.) Inter-NPA local calls are supposed to be dialed as 10D. I was able to dial 781-788-5000 as 10D and connect to the service, where I had previously dialed 7D. There is a new message advising customers that 'for a short period' it will be necessary to dial 781-788-5000; this suggests to me that BankBoston are well on their way to adding 617-788 to their collection of exchanges. Curiously enough, the same message (with the reference to 781) was also played on calls to 508-788-5000. 781-788 is not yet mandatory in my exchange (617-277 ASPinwall, in the Brookline CO); dialing 7D still gets me BankBoston (unless they already have a new 617-788 running, which seems unlikely but possible). As yet there is no 978-788, and calls to such numbers intercept after the exchange prefix with ' The number you are trying to reach is located in area code five-zero-eight.' Attempting to dial 1-617-788 also goes to intercept, but with the odd ' To make a long-distance call, dial one and the area code.' (Not that I would have felt any better to get 'It is not necessary to dial one to make this call' as happens in some benighted places.) I did not try any 781 calls as 1+10D. Bell Atlantic has continued NYNEX's practice of having some artist make impressionistic watercolors of some famous local building for the cover of each directory. The 1997 books commemorated the centenary of the Tremont Street Subway, the oldest continuously operating in North America. The 1998 Boston books commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Boston Public Library, which the caption alleges is the world's oldest municipal public library. The main BPL building, fronting Copley Square in Boston, was recently renovated at great expense. My Brookline, Allston, Brighton community directory shows the John F. Kennedy Birthplace National Historic Site in Brookline. The community directory also inexplicably includes as its last page the ZIP codes for a random collection of localities in southern New Hampshire. The 'Inside Interest' pages have been substantially updated, although they are no longer printed on glossy paper as in previous editions. Still sorely missing is a reasonable-scale map of the directory coverage area showing principal streets, neighborhoods, and suchlike. There is an alleged coverage map on the back of the white pages, but it contains numerous errors and does not show municipal or neighborhood boundary lines or most important streets. The 'Inside Interest' pages for the first time now carry advertising, most notably a display ad for the local soon-to-be-CBS-owned all-sports radio station on the page with seating charts for the local arenas, and a small ad for NEXT Ticketing on the page showing concert venues (perhaps not coincidentally, all commonly owned). The area code maps continue the current trend of becoming almost useless for states with multiple area codes. As in last year's directory, the new Caribbean area codes are not shown on the map at all, and readers are uselessly directed to the section on international calling, which only lists Haiti and the Netherlands and French Antilles (those being the islands which are not part of the NANP and thus have their own country codes). Am I the only person who thinks they should have a full-page display talking about these codes and the fact that it is possible to make an international call within the NANP? The numerical listing of area codes is substantially more up-to-date than the maps, including a number of codes which have yet to even take effect. Guam is shown as both +671 in the international listing, and as +1 671 in the area-codes-by-number listing. One suspects that when this change is completed, they will drop the former but still leave Guam off the map. As if all this weren't enough, a number of communities in the Boston area will also be changing ZIP codes this summer. The Postal Service is attempting to reclaim numbers in the 021- and 022- ranges, to which end they are revoking Brockton's long-standing 024- numbers, and redistributing them to a number of 021- communities in the West Suburban area. Yesterday's {Globe} names those communities as Brookline, Newton, Needham, Wellesley, Weston, Waltham, Lexington, Arlington, and Belmont. (I wonder if this means the Postal Service will finally admit that I and my neighbors don't actually live in Brookline, 02146, but actually in Brighton, most of which is 02135. Probably not ...) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: matthew@mobile_REMOVE_world.org (Matthew McDonald) Subject: MobileWorld Update - January 1998 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:22:21 GMT Organization: MobileWorld Reply-To: matthew@mobile_REMOVE_world.org Contains a host of information on anything you need to know on GSM systems and now branching out into Analogue information. The most comprehensive and the original site for all information. GSM Information, GSM FAQ, GSM Phone Information, GSM Phone Reviews, Phone Links, GSM Phone Secrets, GSM Quick Reference Guide, GSM Future, GSM Network Listings and NEW is Analogue secrets (limited info at the moment). Battery Information - the REAL story; Cellular Safety Information; GSM SIM card pictures from around the world and Much Much MORE ... Visit MobileWorld today at http://www.mobileworld.org/ Regards Matthew McDonald Editor MobileWorld http://www.mobileworld.org/ Brisbane, Australia ------------------------------ Subject: Action Line in the San Jose Mercury News Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:39:39 -0800 (PST) From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (For old time TELECOM Digest readers, wasn't this John Higdon's favorite newspaper?? :) ) An excerpt from Action Line in the {San Jose Mercury News}: Cracking down on junk faxes Q: I recently read about a state law that says companies sending out "junk faxes" had to provide an 800 number you could call to be removed from their list. I've received several junk faxes about a ">>get<< >>rich<< >>quick<<" scheme that provides such a toll-free number. I sent a request to that "do not fax" number, but I'm still getting their transmissions, sometimes as many as 25 in a single day. I pay for my own fax paper and need the machine to be available for my business clients. I want this to stop. Can you tell me what the law says and is there anything else I can do to stop this? -- Kim M. Rose, Cupertino A: You summed up the law pretty well. Sec. 17538.4 of the state Business and Professions Code says companies sending unsolicited faxes must provide a toll-free number where recipients can request that such transmissions stop. Violators can be fined up to $500 for each transmission sent after the stop request is received. The Federal Communications Commission has similar rules on the books (known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act). Robin Wakshull, a spokeswoman for the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, says it doesn't matter if the company is in another state -- if it is doing business in California, it must abide by the law. However, she says tracking down violators of this unsolicited fax law can be tricky. In many cases, these companies are boiler room-type operations that set up temporary shop, then move before they can be tracked down. Still, the DA's office staff can investigate the matter if you provide copies of the unwanted faxes and any other information you might have about the company. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's office can be reached at (408) 792-2880. You also might consider sending a detailed letter about the situation to the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau, Consumer Complaints Office, Mail Stop 1600A2, Washington, D.C. 20554. Keep in mind, however, that these rules do not apply to unwanted messages sent via e-mail or the Internet. Chain e-mail a hoax Q: I just received an e-mail supposedly from "Bill Gates and the Microsoft Development Team." It asks for my help in testing new "electronic-mail tracing" software for Microsoft. It asks to me to forward the letter to everyone I know, and if it reaches 1,000 people, I'll get $1,000 and a copy of Windows 98, courtesy of Microsoft. I'm sure it can't be real, but figured it'd be best to ask the experts. What does Action Line think? -- S. Belfield, San Jose A: We think you shouldn't expect $1,000.00 or the software package to land in your mailbox anytime soon. The chain e-mail is a hoax, confirms a Microsoft spokeswoman. The company's software testing is performed in-house or with preselected user groups -- not the general public, she says. The hoax first came to Microsoft's attention late last year, and the company has received more than 100 inquiries about the letter. Furthermore, the official says Windows 98 is not available to the public at this time. ------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well actually, you can download a beta version of Windows 98 from one of the servers at microsoft.com. It would help to have a very fast connection and a very clean line to your ISP. Using a 'fast' modem, their estimated time for the download was several hours going at 28.8 ..... gee I wish I could go at least 56 K ... but then, considering how jammed up the net is these days, I guess all I would be doing is hurrying up so I could wait that much longer for a page to appear. I honestly suspect I could plod along at 9600 baud and do as well as I do now. Is it just me, or is the web getting slower than ever? I was online Sunday afternoon looking at a couple of sites which -- in theory -- should have been beautiful and quite interesting. But when I connected and my browser (I tried both IE-4 and Netscape 3.0) informed me '14 more pictures to retrieve' and I had about twenty percent of the first of those pictures after about a minute of waiting, I got disgusted and gave up on it. And if anyone tries to tell me that Net Meeting (or other internet phone applications) are going to be a serious threat to telco at any time in the distant future, I'll laugh at them. Also Sunday afternoon I was checking out ils(1 thru 5).microsoft.com as well as the servers at four11.com ... they were all extremely sluggish and congested and if there was one user on line for non-sexual reasons I somehow missed seeing him. It took several minutes from each to get a directory of who was on line; it seemed that each user had some protocol different than the others; the two attempts I made to connect with users there (I had the handle 'software testing') met with 'connection timed out' or 'cannot locate the user' messages. It all seemed dreadful. Regarding 'voice-related' applications, America OnLine is now offering 'voice email'. You record your message using your sound card and the software they sell you, then it gets sent like email to the other person who gets to listen to it on Real Player or similar; I assume with all the bumps and grinds caused by network congestion any other time I attempt to use Real Player for a radio station, etc. And someone else has come up with 'Visual IRC' ... isn't that cute? It is IRC for the unwashed masses, but you can send audio and video in the process. Like Real Player and Net Meeting, it looks and sounds terrible. The internet has really dropped to the lowest common denominator; Usenet has been a cesspool -- a plugged up toilet -- for years now; and thanks to the people who feel they have to use dozens of pictures, java scripts and other gimmicks on their web pages now plodding around the web has become quite unpleasant also. So if I want to run simple text messages on a web page intended to supplement this Digest, you still get to wait forever forever for a connection while lots of other people are busy showing off their sexual organs to each other and asking 'are you m or f? how old? ...' and running outlandish web pages. And I should not criticize my 'good friend' Bill Gates :) but Micro- soft has a 'gallery' where one can download the newest thing in web pages: they call them 'scriptlets' -- which as MS informs us is not a new type of chewing gum; rather, they are scripts which you insert in your web page which run on the caller's machine after he connects with your page. I call your web page and you hand me a script which unknowing to me, starts running on my machine. Naturally they have it fixed so it only works on IE-4 browsers; I tried a few with Netscape only to have Netscape complain about 'java script errors' which it could not understand or deal with. These scriptlets are free; they want you to take them and use them on your own web page. So, Internet, Usenet and the World Wide Web go the way of CB radio; what else is old news? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #24 ***************************** NOTE: ISSUE 25 WAS MAILED OUT OF SEQUENCE FOLLOWING ISSUE 26 AND IT APPEARS IN THIS ARCHIVE AFTER ISSUE 26 (NEXT) From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 3 22:16:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA19318; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:16:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:16:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802040316.WAA19318@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #26 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Feb 98 22:16:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft Gets Lessig Removed as Special Master (TELECOM Digest Editor) Our Internic Fees (Cliff Scheller) Book Review: "Growing Up Digital", Don Tapscott (Rob Slade) Compromise On Next Mobile Phone Standard (Monty Solomon) Beware Brooks Fiber! (Murray Bent) Telecom Update (Canada) #118, February 2, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing (David W. Levenson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Microsoft Gets Lessig Removed as Special Master People who have been following the dispute between Microsoft and the federal government will recall that Microsoft had strongly opposed the appointment of Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig as 'special master' in the government's attempts to force the company to remove Internet Explorer from the Windows 95 package. Lessig openly expressed his bias against Microsoft on various occasions in the past, and the company rightfully felt they would not get a fair shake in court as long as Lessig was functioning as a 'friend of the court'. Lessig was there in the first place because presumably the judge was/is not sufficiently computer literate to resolve the matter on his own. When Microsoft came into possession of documents showing that Lessig was very biased against them -- documents which previously had been hidden and gone unreported by the Justice Department which did know of them, but chose not to reveal it to Microsoft -- they went to court and asked to have Lessig recuse himself; that is, remove himself from the litigation. The judge was furious! He told Microsoft in effect to shut up and accept things the way they were. The judge told Microsoft that if they even dared to complain about anything or speak up about anything in his court he would punish them even more severely. Well, Microsoft did shut up, at least long enough to get out of court and head straight for Appeals Court. On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted Microsoft's request for a stay in the proceedings, freezing Lessig's work in the case at least for the time being. Microsoft is asking the Appeals Court to force Lessig out of the case entirely, and a source at Microsoft tells me they will probably also ask for a different judge -- one who will listen fairly to all sides. I cannot imagine they would want to go back in front of the same judge now that they got him overruled after his threats against them. The Appeals Court has set oral arguments on the Lessig matter for April 21. In the meantime, Lessig is not to pursue the matter further and the government is not to pursue any further action against Microsoft. In other news, Microsoft expects Windows 98 to be generally avail- able by late spring or early in the summer. It will include Internet Explorer 4. Netscape's response to all this was to declare at the end of January that their Netscape Navigator is now being given away free if you wish to download it from their web site. PAT ------------------------------ From: Cliff Scheller Organization: http://www.compuquestinc.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:32:59 -0600 Subject: Our Internic Fees Just a small excerpt from: http://www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/msnb/0203/281457.html Court: Domain fees appear illegal By Brock N. Meeks MSNBC February 3, 1998 10:42 AM PST WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 - A federal court Monday issued a temporary injunction barring the federal government from spending some $50 million it has collected from the registration of Internet domain names. That money forms a pool of funds intended to be spent for improving the Internet. On Monday, the court sided with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that claims those fees constitute an illegal tax ... Judge Thomas Hogan said Monday that the plaintiffs "have made a significant showing that the (intellectual infrastructure fund) is an illegal tax." ... "Under federal law, no independent executive agency -- such as the National Science Foundation -- can collect fees that exceed the cost of providing the service they are administering," said William Bode, attorney for the plaintiffs. "NSI, the agent of NSF, spends less than $5 to register domain names, yet it charges a registration fee of $100 and renewal fees of $50 per year," he said. Network Solutions did not return calls for comment. The temporary injunction "paves the way for our motion, which we'll file in two days, to require NSI to return all registration renewal fees which exceed the cost of providing that service," attorney Bode said. "We think that cost [to NSI for the registration process] is significantly less than $10, probably $2 to $3," he said, "which would mean that there would be a refund of approximately $100 million in our judgment." Compuquest, Inc. Fax: 630.830.0877 630-830-2700 URL: http://www.compuquestinc.com Mfg. Innovative Products & Services Since 1983 "Turn Your Pager into a Remote Monitoring System" ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:54:42 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Growing Up Digital", Don Tapscott Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKGRUPDI.RVW 971107 "Growing Up Digital", Don Tapscott, 1997, 0-07-063361-4, U$22.95/C$32.95 %A Don Tapscott %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-063361-4 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$22.95/C$32.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %O lisah@McGrawHill.ca %P 256 %T "Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation" Don Tapscott apparently gets a lot of mileage out of the story about his kids being unimpressed by Tapscott's TV appearance that had him demonstrating how to surf the Web. According to Tapscott, this proves that his kids are N-Geners: yet another "generation", this one that has grown up with, and is attuned to, the massive international networks, and the technology behind them. Experienced network users might take a different interpretation from the story. Web surfing is a particularly pedestrian skill, if it is a skill at all, and "demonstrating" the use of a graphical browser, with its point and click interface, tends to be both pointless and rather boring for the observer. This book takes a rather dubious premise, and extends it as far as possible, and probably considerably beyond. In the first chapter Tapscott looks at demographics to chart the Baby Boom generation (those born from 1946 to 1964), Douglas Coupland's Generation X (1964 to 1978), and N-Gen (1978 to 2000). However, a look at real demographic statistics points out an unfortunate fact: while most of those in the N-Gen group will have heard of the net, and a great number might have had some experience on it, even among the singularly fortunate population of North America only a minority elite have regular and consistent access to it. The book itself appears to be based on research conducted with a small sample of subjects culled from a single site representing a ridiculously small number of individuals in comparison to the population of the United States alone. (A great deal of the book is based on self-reports from those subjects.) The N-Gen may come, but it probably hasn't been born yet. (The author does, rather frequently, admit that the presence of technology "haves" and "have nots" is a problem, but he never really analyzes the situation, the potential outcomes, or possible fixes. While there is an entire chapter devoted to the topic, it tends to recycle anecdotes rather than look seriously at the issue. In the course of the review I burst out laughing, and had to explain the guffaw to my wife by reading the sentence on page 266 that occasioned it: "Homeless people online at the local library can log on to the community information bulletin board to find beds in a shelter, a hot shower, or even medical and counseling services." Her response was an immediate and disbelieving "Yeah, right!" followed by the observation that the statement was pathetically naive and unrealistic. I really couldn't argue with her. I spend considerable time at our regional libraries, and while we are blessed with access to Freenet through all the card catalogue terminals, and have, in addition, a number of graphical Web browsing terminals, I can't say that I've ever seen one of the homeless looking up a shelter. The Vancouver CommunityNet and Victoria TeleCommunity Net seem to agree with me: they don't even have a listing for shelter for the homeless, although Vancouver does have one for wildlife. I think Tapscott has been getting his information from "Doonesbury.") One of the great unchallenged assertions of our day is that children feel more comfortable with technology, and learn it faster than adults. Tapscott holds fast to this premise, and uses it frequently in telling how our kids are going to be much different than we are, or were. His most important assertion based upon this fact is the Generation Lap, which he uses to mean that traditional teaching roles are becoming reversed as children are becoming instructors of their parents in regard to computers. There is only one problem: the central statement is not true. Those under the age of eighteen do not have any magical skill or empathy with technology. They are just as confused and frightened about technology as anyone else. If they tend to learn more than those around them, that has more to do with the general lack of experience with computing in the population as a whole. If I have dealt with many adults who couldn't remember that a Window out of sight is not also necessarily out of memory, I have equally taught children who were so afraid of computers that they wouldn't input a program without typing on a typewriter first, and others who had so much trouble with the concept of double clicking that they had to be taught to click and then hit return in order to invoke a program. Even if it were true, though, that children learn software applications by some sort of effortless osmosis, I fail to understand why that would automatically lead to an understanding of the fundamental technologies involved, as Tapscott implies when talking about education. The book does make some interesting observations. Those who use the net tend to accept diversity, to be more curious, and to be confident. However, these occasional insights tend to be buried in a mass of commentary that is either trivial and obvious (computers are fun!) or questionable (the Internet automatically teaches children how to learn). Repeated statements about the "success" enjoyed by some of the young people contacted in the course of writing the book seem to say much more about entrepreneurship than technology. A defence of the violence of video games makes a weak nod toward the work of Bandura, but unconvincingly states that it really isn't important. (The makers of violent computer games, toys, and television programmes will undoubtedly be relieved to hear it.) Some points in the book may well be true, but unhelpful. Tapscott's statement that mass education is a product of the industrial economy falls into this category. "Individual" instruction probably *is* better for the student. The text fails, however, to look at how such education might realistically (and economically) be provided, and how a free-for-all curriculum might result in some kind of graduation or assessment that would convince potential employers as to the skills of the products of this type of schooling. (OK, that statement is a product of an industrial economy too. Generalize it, then: how are we to know anything about the success of such an educational system?) Other parts of the book are best described as pseudoprofound. There are frequent quotes from the young participants that, on first glance, seem to point out some kind of new age wisdom. Chapter ten has the N- Gen focus group express surprise that adults would have trouble sharing information: a relatively easy statement to make if you have never put a lot of work into study and the development of information. Given a moment's thought, though, the statements tend to demonstrate a kind of naive ignorance. This is simply a result of lack of experience and study of history on the part of the young. It is not their fault, of course, and may provide a brief moment of amusement in comparing their blind spots with our own. Those who are experienced with the net will find that this book doesn't say anything that isn't pretty widely known already. But I dare say the knowledgeable user is not the target audience. For the uninitiated, then, Tapscott provides a bewildering variety of new insights. I use the word bewildering deliberately, since many of these insights are either trivial or untrue, and it will be quite difficult for the reader from the general public to sort the wheat from the chaff. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKGRUPDI.RVW 971107 ------------------------------ Subject: Compromise On Next Mobile Phone Standard Date: Tue, 03 Feb 98 18:52:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Compromise On Next Mobile Phone Standard By Sandra Maler PARIS (Reuters) - Mobile telephone makers, operators and regulators agreed on Thursday on worldwide standards for the next generation of high-performance cell phones, delegates at a telecommunications standards meeting in Paris said. The hard-fought compromise paved the way for the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), a new standard due to offer clients features like two-way text messaging, video and Internet access by the year 2002. It included elements from two competing proposals, one based on the W-CDMA technology backed by Finland's Nokia and Sweden's Ericsson and the other on TD-CDMA technology favored by Germany's Siemens and the U.S. group Motorola. "The goal of this proposal is to offer the competitive long- term solution for GSM evolution to UMTS," a statement by the European telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) conference said. Each rival had powerful backing from manufacturers and telecommunications authorities around the world, who wanted to ensure a smooth transition from GSM, the de facto world standard now, to a new generation. "The proposal has key elements of both proposals," GSM operators association chairwoman Adriana Nugter told Reuters. "It is very good that Asian, European and American manufacturers are happy with this proposal." The text of the approved proposal showed the compromise formula was basically the W-CDMA technology modified to ensure it works with GSM, has FDD/TDD dual mode operations and fits in the 2-to-5 megahertz band required for the U.S. market. The meeting brought together manufacturers, operators and regulators to end a dispute between Europe's mobile telephone manufacturers. The ETSI meeting voted for the W-CDMA technology on Wednesday, but failed to give it the 71 percent majority that ETSI rules require. The Nordic-backed W-CDMA technology is a CDMA standard fully compatible with the current Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) technology. The rival camp proposed TD-CDMA, a CDMA standard combining elements of the Time Division Multiple Access, used in Asia, Europe and other regions. The Nordic alliance is backed by Japan's DoCoMo, the mobile arm of Japan's largest telecom operator NTT. It also claims support from Britain's largest mobile phone operator Vodafone, British Telecom, Finnish Telecom, the Swiss national telecoms operator and Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV of the Netherlands. Siemens, on the other hand, is backed by Alcatel Alsthom, Italtel, Sony and Northern Telecom. Lucent Technologies said it had not yet made up its mind and saw advantages to both systems. Europe is the world leader in mobile telephony thanks to its GSM standard, which has become the de facto global standard and now has some 66 million subscribers in 110 countries. The United Nations-linked International Telecommunications Union (ITU), based in Geneva, is also studying standards for cellular telephony and is expected to recommend one of them by end of 1999. ------------------------------ From: Murray Bent Reply-To: murrayb@imailbox.com Subject: Beware Brooks Fiber! Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:45:06 GMT Brooks Fiber is now synonymous with CABLE OUTAGES, afters somehow drilling through three cables and putting 5000 customers offline since Wednesday. I've only just now gotten back online. I know of doctors, and other emergency workers that were incommunicado due to the cut. Families were unable to arrange car transport for family members, workers out-of-town were worried what had happened back home, gated apartments were cut off from their intercom systems, people started feeling a lot more vulnerable about their safety despite increased police presence and a temporary system of dozens of fire spotters across the city. For all the finger-pointing between different competitors and authorities, the end consumer was thrown back into the stone age for a week. I'd like to see a comprehensive plan from Brooks Fiber setting out how they plan to continue conducting business in the City of Palo Alto without destroying even more infrastructure in the process! Murray Bent 45 Newell Rd #209 Palo Alto CA 94303-2733 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:45:13 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #118, February 2, 1998 *********************************************************** * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 118: February 2, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** LD Carriers in New Price War Sprint Canada AT&T Canada Bell Canada ACC TelEnterprises ** BCE Profit Before Writedown $1.4 Billion ** CRTC to Telus -- Comply or Desist ** LNP Rollout Dates Affirmed ** fONOROLA to Be CLEC ** WTO Agreement Takes Effect ** Shaw to Drop "Wave" Price ** Lucent Intros 400 Gbps Fiber ** MCI to Open Winnipeg Call Center ** Newbridge Allies With 3Com ** PSINet Has Received 69% of Istar Shares ** Gandalf Offers Simultaneous LAN/PBX Access ** Videotron and Regional Cablesystems Trade Assets ** Correction: Shaw Messaging ** Free Telecom Management Anthology ============================================================ LD CARRIERS IN NEW PRICE WAR: Major long distance carriers fired the first shots in a new battle for consumer customers last week. ** Sprint Canada's residential "The Most" plan now bills calls in one-second increments after the first minute. Calls shorter than 10 seconds are free. Overseas rates are reduced. ** AT&T Canada's "True Choice Anywhere" residential customers now pay 10 cents/minute for evening and weekend (7pm-7am) calls within Canada. AT&T dubbed the change "Dime Time." ** Bell Canada's new "FirstRate" residential plan offers 10 cents/minute evening (6pm-8am) and weekend calling within Canada. Evening and weekend calls to the U.S. are 20 cents/minute. Canada/U.S. weekday calls and all international calls are 25% off base rates. There is no minimum charge. ** ACC TelEnterprises has announced two plans for Canada/U.S. calls: one provides free calls on Fridays for business customers; the other, 5 cents/minute calls on Sunday anywhere in North America for consumers. ** All of the Stentor companies have reduced overseas rates, and restructured them to eliminate the extra first-minute charge. BCE PROFIT BEFORE WRITEDOWN $1.4 BILLION: Aside from its $3 Billion writedown (see Telecom Update #116), BCE Corp. had its best year ever in 1997. Net income (before writedown) was $1.414 Billion, up 23% from 1996. Total revenues rose 18% to reach $33.2 Billion. ** Bell Canada's profits rose 21% to $801 Million. BCE Mobile's net earnings were $71 Million (a 53% increase). Bell Canada International posted a loss of $58 Million, compared with a $25 Million loss in 1996. CRTC TO TELUS -- COMPLY OR DESIST: The CRTC has rejected Telus's request to continue its multimedia trial despite its inability to install digital equipment. If Telus doesn't comply with the terms of its license by February 3, the Commission will begin proceedings to force a halt to the trial. LNP ROLLOUT DATES AFFIRMED: On January 29, the CRTC confirmed the rollout dates for Local Number Portability proposed by Commission staff last August. LNP is to be available in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal by this fall, and in Halifax, Winnipeg, St. John, and St. John’s by the end of the year. Victoria, Ottawa, and several mid-size Ontario cities will follow in early 1999. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o9860_0.txt fONOROLA TO BE CLEC: fONOROLA has registered with the CRTC as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. fONOROLA has not yet said where it will offer service. WTO AGREEMENT TAKES EFFECT: The World Trade Organization agreement on telecommunications trade, signed last February (see Telecom Update #70), will come into effect on February 5. The 72 countries that signed the agreement account for 93% of world telecom trade. SHAW TO DROP "WAVE" PRICE: Shaw Communications is reducing the price of its WAVE Internet service to $39.95 a month from $55. LUCENT INTROS 400 Gbps FIBER: Lucent Technologies has introduced a networking system which provides up to 400 gigabits/second on a single strand of fiber. MCI TO OPEN WINNIPEG CALL CENTER: MCI says it will build its first outsourcing call center outside the U.S. in Winnipeg. The new facility will hire 200 employees to handle mainly inbound traffic. NEWBRIDGE ALLIES WITH 3COM: Newbridge Networks has formed a "long-term strategic alliance" with 3Com Corp. 3Com will sell Newbridge's ATM systems and network management software. PSINET HAS RECEIVED 69% OF ISTAR SHARES: PSINet, which is purchasing Istar Internet, has received deposit of 69% of Istar shares and has taken over Istar's day-to-day operations. PSINet has extended the deadline for the tender of shares to February 10. GANDALF OFFERS SIMULTANEOUS LAN/PBX ACCESS: A new product from Gandalf, now a division of Mitel, allows a PBX extension and a LAN connection to be extended off-site over a single ISDN line. VIDEOTRON AND REGIONAL CABLESYSTEMS TRADE ASSETS: Le Groupe Videotron has sold its 100,000-subscriber Northern Ontario cable system to Regional Cablesystems, while purchasing Regional's 7,000-subscriber system in Quebec. Net proceeds to Videotron: about $110 Million. CORRECTION -- SHAW MESSAGING: The report in Telecom Update #117 on Shaw MobileComm's sale of its messaging division referred to this as Shaw's paging business. In fact, Shaw sold its voice messaging service bureaus. FREE TELECOM MANAGEMENT ANTHOLOGY: Until February 27, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive a free copy of "Front-Line Telecom Management in the 1990s," a newly published collection of Henry Dortman's popular "On the Line" columns. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:55:27 -0500 From: David W. Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing As previously reported here, a recent FCC ruling will require that callers be given the opportunity to know the price of a long distance call before they enter their billing information. The intention of this rule is to allow consumers to make an informed choice, in a competitive market. (It is hard to choose if the price isn't posted!) I find it very interesting that AT&T, of all people, should object to this rule: "The FCC today, instead of targeting the companies that charge rip-off rates, is applying a regulatory solution that will unnecessarily raise costs to the entire long-distance industry," said Rick Bailey, AT&T vice president, federal government affairs. AT&T wanted the FCC to place a ceiling on the rates that the "offending" companies could charge. The effect of the new rule is to force long distance carriers to compete on price. AT&T has typically managed to compete based upon name recognition, but their prices have seldom been the lowest in their market. While this rule was intended to curtail price-gouging by AOS companies, it will also force the `legitimate' carriers to compete on price, and AT&T, apparently, is uncomfortable with that. A more interesting problem is that the price of a call often depends upon who is paying it. An AT&T customer who subscribes to OneRate(tm) service will pay less than an AT&T customer who does not. But the price quote offered via the network must be given before the customer enters the billing information. For this case, the rule allows a carrier who cannot announce the actual price to quote the highest price it might charge for the call ... Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Web: http://www.westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #26 ***************************** NOW ISSUE 25 , THEN 27 WILL FOLLOW IN REGULAR ORDER From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 3 22:27:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA20228; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:27:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:27:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199802040327.WAA20228@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #25 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Feb 98 21:14:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Two Questions About Residential Features (Rick Hofmann) New NPA Program Release (Tad Cook) Florida Regulators May Crack Down on Prepaid Telephone Cards (Tad Cook) UCLA Short Course on "Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data" (Bill Goodin) UCLA Short Course on "Turbo Codes" (Bill Goodin) Wanted: Good General Telecom Handbook Suggestions (Jean Vaillancourt) Caller ID USA vs UK (William Paul Berriss) Moscow Phone History (Leonid A. Broukhis) Avoiding Echo on Delayed Communications (Arthur Silveira Neto) IDMS'98 - Extended Deadline (Ketil Lund) AT&T One Rate Plan (Jon Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 11:29:47 -0800 From: Rick Hofmann Reply-To: rchtscm@ni.net Organization: MICROSEARCH Subject: Two Questions About Residential Features I have questions about the *69, and Caller ID Blocking features. First, *69 will not work with all incoming calls. My question is; what factors determine which numbers it will call back, and which numbers it won't? In other words, will *69 only work within the same Central Office, same phone company, switch, etc.? The second question is about Caller ID blocking. Recently a person who has two separate phone lines in her home wanted to check to make sure the Caller ID block was working. She called from her primary line to her secondary line, after having done the *77 (or whatever the necessary code is), but found that it had not blocked Caller ID. She then called the primary line from the secondary line, and found that Caller ID had not worked again. Her service provider (Pac Bell) could offer no explanation as to why it had not worked. Any information or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Rick Hofmann [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We discussed this here in some detail last week so you might want to review messages posted over the past several days. A quick answer to your first question is that 'return last call received' will work with or without caller ID when the caller and the receiver are both in central offices which are equipped. If you get caller-id on someone, then you have the ability to manipulate their calls, i.e. screen them, return their last call to you, etc. It does not have to be the same central office, the same city or even the same state. If the call recipient's central office *knows who was calling* then it can deal with those calls in the future. The code to use to block caller-id is *67. Make sure she is using that code; and the test is best conducted by dialing the block code then calling an independent third party -- such as yourself -- to test it. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: New NPA Program Release Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:34:15 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) The new January 25 release of NPA for Windows shareware is out, and available for download at: http://www.neosoft.com/~robert/pcc/ This is a handy program for calulating distance between COs, figuring out where a phone number is, and what other prefixes are in that CO, as well as Zip Codes associated with phone numnbers, and many other useful features. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ------------------------------ Subject: Florida Regulators May Crack Down on Prepaid Telephone Cards Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:44:00 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Florida Regulators May Crack Down on Prepaid Telephone Cards By Patricia Horn, Sun-Sentinel, South Florida Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News FORT LAUDERDLE. Fla.--Jan. 30--Florida regulators approved rules on Friday that for the first time crack down on consumer problems with prepaid phone card. The rules are some of the first nationally governing this largely unregulated, but popular, new industry. "(The rules) are much stronger than what's in place in other places around the country," said Ken McEldowney, executive director of Consumer Action, a San Francisco-based consumer group that monitors the industry. The Florida Public Service Commission's new rules should help consumers get their money back for cards that don't work, know what company they are buying from, and know in advance just how much they will be paying per minute for calls. These seemingly simple protections have been absent from the industry. "I think we've established some base guidelines that help the consumer and protect those investing in this area," said Commissioner Joe Garcia of Miami. Just five years ago, prepaid cards were largely unknown. Now the cards are found in the wallets of students, traveling sales people, immigrants, tourists and others. People like the cards because they are convenient and cheaper than using coins or calling cards at pay phones, or even having a phone. Most cards work, or, if the cards don't, companies refund the money or issue new cards. But the industry has also proven a haven for business scams and poorly run businesses. In the past year, the Federal Trade Commission, several state utility commissions and attorney generals' offices have begun investigating the industry and considering ways to regulate it. The Florida commission received more than 170 complaints last year on phone cards. Many complaints have come from South Florida, where the cards are popular with Hispanics to make international calls to Latin America. Of the 25 cards, the commission has tested itself, 12 had one or more problems. With phone cards, consumers pay in advance for calls. But some consumers have found that after buying the cards, they couldn't make calls or the company applied unadvertised surcharges. Companies have also sold cards and then gone out of business or not paid for the telephone time, leaving consumers with worthless cards. When consumers have sought refunds, they couldn't find the companies. The new rules should solve some of those problems. The rules apply to all cards sold after July 1. Under the rules: Companies must register with the state and provide price lists. Users must be able to complete calls 95 percent of the time via a toll-free access number. The company's toll-free customers service number must work 95 percent of the time and be available 24-hours-a-day. Companies must give refunds or replacement cards within 60 days if cards don't work for the advertised time. Each card must list the company's name, its toll-free customer service number, and the toll-free access number. The company must post the maximum charge per minute plus surcharges and the expiration date on the card or its packaging or on a store display. To enforce the rules, the commission can issue fines of up to $25,000 a day. Ultimately, if a company does not comply, the commission can stop it from doing business in Florida. Before you buy a prepaid phone card: Determine the rate per minute. Avoid those with higher rates for the first minute. Ask if the retailer will give a refund if phone service is unsatisfactory. Don't buy it if the card's pin number is not completely covered. Otherwise, anyone who has copied your pin can use the phone time you paid for. If you have never used that card before, try the smallest denomination. Don't buy simply on price. Very low rates could mean poor service. Look for disclosures about surcharges, monthly fees, per-call access in addition to the rate-per-minute or unit. Check the expiration date. Make sure there is a toll-free customer service number. At pay phones, use the cards only for toll and long-distance calls. Coins are cheaper for local calls. If you need help, you can call the International Telecard Association's toll-free consumer protection hotline at 800-333-3513. You can also call the Florida Public Service at 800-342-3552. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data" Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:36:53 -0800 On April 28-May 1, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Technologies for Wireless Competitive Markets: Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are C. R. "Rick" Baugh, PhD, consultant, and Peter Rysavy, MSEE, consultant. The Federal Communications Commission has released over 3 GHz of spectrum for wireless services in recent years -- by any measure, an enormous amount. At the same time, license holders have virtually no restrictions on what services they provide. This opens the door to competing services among multiple wireless service providers. On the surface many of these services may look similar, but on closer inspection there may be profound differences. For anyone involved in the cellular, PCS, and wireless data marketplaces it is critical to understand these differences and their impact on competition, service offerings and system performance. These differences include: Wireless Coverage, Service Capacity, Mobility and Roaming, Susceptibility to Interference, Security and Privacy, Network Protocols, Compatibility with Legacy Systems, Data Rates and Data Response Times, Voice Quality, Multimedia Capability, Standards Supported, and Costs of Deployment and Usage. Wireless connectivity and access is important, but it is only part of the answer for end-to-end solutions and applications. Integration and interoperability with existing systems and traditional public voice and data networks is vital for successful businesses. This course helps service providers to enhance and expand on their own technologies, as well as to understand the crucial differences between competitors' technologies. Users of wireless technologies should see the distinctions among alternative service providers when determining business needs and application requirements. Manufacturers of equipment examine the technical characteristics and tradeoffs between alternative technologies and their impact on system performance. This course is intended for engineers and technical managers who plan, design, implement, and operate voice and data communications systems; corporate telecommunications planners and information technology managers who intend to include wireless voice and data systems within their communications networks; and designers of equipment used for wireless voice and data products and systems. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1992. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Turbo Codes" Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:37:08 -0800 On April 28-May 1, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Turbo Codes: Principles and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Sergio Benedetto, PhD, Politecnico di Torino; Dariush Divsalar, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Guido Mortorsi, Politecnico di Torino; and Fabrizio Pollara, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Turbo codes were introduced in 1993 and are considered among the most important developments in coding theory. Researchers around the world have been able to extend the basic idea to other forms of code concatenations, with various applications to transmission over fading channels, band-limited satellite channels, and channels with intersymbol interference. A turbo code is formed by two simple convolutional codes separated by an interleaver. The decoder consists of two Soft-Input Soft-Output (SISO) modules connected by an interleaver and a deinterleaver. This course addresses fundamentals of turbo codes; understanding of the principles governing the code behavior; extension to multiple turbo codes, and iterative decoding; design of a turbo code for various throughputs and modulations such as M-PSK, M-QAM; implementation of a turbo decoder by using the Add-Compare-Select operations and lookup tables similar to those used in the implementation of Viterbi decoders; extensions of turbo coding concepts to other forms of concatenation with interleavers such as serial and hybrid concatenation; applications to space communications, digital direct broadcast satellite services, CDMA, and virtually any data communication system that can tolerate a delay due to an interleaver size of at least 250 bits (delay is proportional to the interleaver size divided by the data rate). This is a new subject area and the potential applications of this new coding scheme are potentially broad. Engineers working in all aspects of information transmission technology, as well as research scientists and academics, should benefit from the material presented in the course. The analytical details are kept to a minimum and no algebraic tools are required. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:19:47 -0500 From: Jean-Francois Vaillancourt Subject: Wanted: Good General Telecom Handbook Suggestions I'm just starting out as a telecom analyst for a large financial institution, and am beginning to see there is a rather large gap between my predominantly theoretical training and our corporate customers' real networks ... So, I'm looking for a good practical telecom handbook that would allow me to accelerate my adaptation. So far, I've read Mr. Slade's reviews, and borrowed several books: Telecommunication System Engineering, 3rd edition (1996), by Freeman. Looked promising, but on examination I saw that there was lots of unexplicably outdated info for a 1996 book. For example, the modem standards stop at V.32bis. The diagrams and charts are muddy, and I feel this book is definitely not worth C$130. Telecommunications Technology Handbook (1991), by Daniel Minoli. Closer to what I think I need, but shows its age. Business Data Communications, 3rd. edition (1998), by William Stallings. Pertinent business orientation, but not detailed enough. So ... any other ideas? Suggestions will be very welcome, and I will summarize for the list if warranted. Thanks! Jean-Francois Vaillancourt Montreal, Canada ------------------------------ From: William Paul Berriss Subject: Caller ID USA vs UK Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 07:43:02 +0000 Organization: University of Reading Hi, Canw anyone tell me whether an American bought Caller ID unit for a normal residential telephone will work if plugged in to the UK phone system? Assuming I put the correct plug on it (bigger than the US square plug). The GE caller id unit will display up to 1-888-888-8888, so since most UK numbers are 11 digits long but start with a 0 may be this is preventing it working. It just says -- No DATA -- Caller ID is subscribed to so we do have the service. Any ideas? Are the systems totally incompatible? Please advise if you can. Thank in advance. Sincerely, W P Berriss E-mail: W.P.Berriss@reading.ac.uk Department of Engineering The University of Reading Whiteknights Reading Tel: 0118 987 5123 Berkshire (+44 118 987 5123 outside UK) RG6 6AY England Fax: 0118 931 3327 World Wide Web Home Page: http://www.elec.rdg.ac.uk/staff_postgrads/postgrads/wb/will.html ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Moscow Phone History Date: 31 Jan 1998 20:33:05 -0800 I'm translating this from a Russian online technical tidbits review by Dmitry Zavalishin (http://koi8.excimer.ru/dz/online/on-28-01-98.htm): [...] Moscow telephony is more than 100 years old. This is practically not interesting. Interesting is that today [i.e. 1/28 - L.B.] the last in Moscow, and probably in the whole world, "machine" exchange is being dismantled. The machine exchange is a horrible beast, put in service in 1931, which design predates even the oldest step exchanges (nowadays hard to find by themselves). The aforementioned machine exchange (located on the Ordynka street) - the first automatic one in Moscow. It worked, as can be easily computed, SIXTY SEVEN YEARS. The Moscow City Phone Network authority had no possibility to replace it earlier. [end of quote] Leo PS. Now the question: what is "machine" exchange? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Machine exchange' means an automatic exchange, as opposed to a manual or 'Operator exchange'. If we started in English as opposed to Russian being translated, we probably would not phrase it in exactly those same words. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Arthur Silveira Neto Subject: Avoiding Echo on Delayed Communications Date: 1 Feb 1998 00:32:19 GMT Organization: Nlink Internet Provider - Recife - PE - BRAZIL Does anyone know where can I find some article or something that explains how to solve the echo problem that occurs in a conversation when there is a delay between the sender and the receiver? I need a software solution. Thanks in advance. Arthur S. Neto Systems Engineer MidiaVox Ltda. arthur@nlink.com.br arthur@midiavox.com.br ------------------------------ From: Ketil Lund Subject: IDMS'98 - Extended Deadline Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:13:50 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway ***** IDMS'98 ***** **** **** *** Please note the new deadline for submissions *** **** **** ***** February 15, 1998 ***** Since we have have received many requests to extend the submission deadline for IDMS'98, we decided to extend the deadline by two weeks to February 15. Please note that February 15 is a HARD deadline. You will be doing us a great favor if you disseminate the this information among your interested colleagues. Thank you very much! Call for Papers IDMS'98 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services 8. - 11. September 1998, Oslo, Norway in cooperation with ACM* / IEEE technical co-sponsorship*, *: pending The Fifth International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services follows the successful IDMS workshops held 1997 in Darmstadt and 1996 in Berlin. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers, developers, and practitioners from academia and industry. The workshop serves as a forum for discussion, presentation, and exploration of technologies and their advances in the broad field of interactive distributed multimedia systems and telecommunication services -- ranging from basic system technologies such as networking and operating system support to all kinds of teleservices and distributed multimedia applications. Case studies and papers describing experimental work are especially welcome. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to: *High-speed/ATM networks *Mobile multimedia systems *Multimedia over satellite *Multimedia middleware *Quality of service issues *Media scaling *Resource management *Protocol design and implementation *Distributed multimedia database systems *Development tools for distributed multimedia applications *Multimedia-specific intelligent agents *Computer supported collaborative work *Distributed virtual reality systems *Distance education *Conferencing *Digital libraries *Interactive television *Video-on-demand systems *Compression algorithms IDMS'98 will consist of a three day technical program, a full day of tutorials, and demonstrations during the workshop. In order to keep the flavour of a workshop, the number of participants will be restricted. Furthermore, we encourage contributions in form of full papers and position papers. Full papers are expected to describe innovative and significant work. The purpose of position papers is to provide a seed for debate and discussion. Position papers enable researchers to present exciting ongoing work in early stages, suggestions for future directions, and concerns about current developments. Both types of papers will be reviewed by the program committee and printed in the workshop proceedings. The proceedings will be published in the Springer LNCS series (http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/) and will be available during the workshop. It is intended to forward selected papers to a special issue of the "Computer Communications" Journal. Information for authors: Authors are invited to submit full papers and position papers for review. Submitted manuscripts must describe original work (not submitted or published elsewhere). Full papers must not be longer than 20 double spaced pages and position papers must not be longer than 8 double spaced pages. Both types of papers should contain an abstract of approximately 300 words, and include title, authors and affiliations. The submission process of papers will be handled electronically. Detailed description of the electronic submission procedures is available on the IDMS'98 web page: http://www.unik.no/~idms98. Authors without web access may send mail to idms98@unik.no requesting electronic submission information. Authors unable to submit electronically are invited to send 5 copies of their contribution to one of the workshops chairs ATTN: IDMS'98. Important dates: EXTENDED DEADLINE Submission due: February 15, 1998 (hard deadline!) Notification of acceptance: April 15, 1998 Camera ready version: May 15, 1998 Workshop: September 9 - 11, 1998 Program co-chairs: Vera Goebel and Thomas Plagemann UniK - Center for Technology at Kjeller, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 70, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway Email: {goebel; plageman}@unik.no, Phone: +47/63.81.45.70, Fax: +47/63.81.81.46 Program Committee: F. A. Aagesen, NTNU, Norway H. Affifi, ENST Bretagne, France E. Biersack, Institut Eurcom, France G. Bochmann, U. Montreal, Canada B. Butscher, DeTeBerkom, Germany A. T. Campbell, Columbia U., USA S. Chanson , Hong Kong U. of S.&T., HK L. Delgrossi, U. Piacenza, Italy M. Diaz, LAAS-CNRS, France F. Eliassen, U. Troms, Norway W. Effelsberg, U. Mannheim, Germany D. Ferrari, U. Cattolica Piacenza, Italy J.-P. Hubaux, EPFL, Switzerland D. Hutchison, Lancaster U., UK W. Kalfa, TU Chemnitz, Germany T. D. C. Little, Boston U., USA E. Moeller, GMD FOKUS, Germany K. Moldeklev, Telenor, Norway K. Nahrstedt, U. Illinois, USA G. Parulkar, Washington U., USA B. Pehrson, KTH Stockholm, Sweden S. Pink, SICS, Sweden B. Plattner, ETH Zurich, Switzerland H. Scholten, U. Twente, Netherlands R. Steinmetz, GMD, Germany H. Tokuda, Keio U., Japan L. Wolf, TU Darmstadt, Germany M. Zitterbart, TU Braunschweig, Germany ACM Multimedia'98 takes place in Bristol (UK) in the week following IDMS'98: http://www.acm.org/sigmm/MM98. Best regards, Ketil Lund | Organization Committee IDMS'98 | 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia | Systems and Telecommunication Services | Oslo, Norway, 1998 | UniK - Center for Technology at Kjeller | University of Oslo | P.O. Box 70, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway | e-mail: idms98@unik.no | WWW: http://www.unik.no/~idms98 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:51:15 -0800 From: Jon Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! AT&T One Rate Plan You know the number AT&T used to sponsor the plan was 1-800-4-one-rate. My cellular phone won't dial that, it dials 1-800-4-ONE-RAT. It's a chuckle. I didn't realize AT&T knew it's own reputation :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #25 ***************************** NOTE: ISWSUE 25/26 MAILED OUT OF SEQUENCE. 26 APPEARS BEFORE 25 IN THIS ARCHIVE. 27 NOW FOLLOWS NORMALLY. From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 5 23:32:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA04039; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:32:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:32:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802060432.XAA04039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #27 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Feb 98 23:32:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 877 Replication Report (Judith Oppenheimer) State Approves Plan For Second Area Code in Northern Nevada (Tad Cook) US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings (Tad Cook) Country Code +423 for Liechtenstein (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Moscow Phone History (Jim Cobban) Call Center Designer - Renowned Firm (Lynn Waters Recruiting) Area Code 225 For Baton Rouge LA (Mark J. Cuccia) IIA-A (Robert Speirs) The Deliberalisation in Hong Kong (Alex Pang) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: 877 Replication Report Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:37:11 -0500 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, Daily News Serv. of Toll Free Industry Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com We keep getting calls about 877 replication. We tell the dismayed and disappointed that there is no 877 set-aside for replication, as there was with 888. Callers *swear* they've read about it, and then lo and behold, we bump into a January 20 {Bergen Record} article, "New toll-free number, 877, to make debut" which states, among other things, "roughly 375,000 of 888 and 877 vanity numbers have been set aside by Bellcore, which expects to offer them to 800 holders first", ostensibly quoting Bellcore spokesman Ken Branson. So, one more time ... There is NO replication, or for that matter, early reservation beyond carrier marketing wait-lists, for 877. None. As of this moment, SMS will first take reservations for 877 from RespOrgs some time after 12:01 AM on April 5, first-come-first-serve. And this, though the narrowed tunnel of the ration allocation system, which will only be doubled for the first two weeks after 877 opens up. Which will place your numbers behind the carriers' own (877 COLLECT, 877 PIN DROP, 877 CALL ATT, etc.); then their largest customers, and then, somewhere down the road ... you. In a marketplace where carriers are pitting 800-holding customers against 877-wannabe customers (MCI seems to be particulary callous toward some of its existing 800 customers), you can expect an active market in 877, as desirable numbers (ones that no one wants to use, but rather, to be shelved by the 800, and now 888, holders ... as well as those appealing for potential misdial value) get taken for market value, and then redistributed in the FCC-banned, but active nonetheless, secondary market. ... and the band played on ... Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The daily news service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Subject: State Approves Plan For Second Area Code in Northern Nevada Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:34:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) CARSON CITY (AP) -- State regulators voted Thursday to approve a new telephone area code for northern Nevadans and limit the existing 702 code to booming Las Vegas and surrounding communities. The 702 code would remain in Clark County, encompassing Las Vegas. For the rest of the state, voluntary use of the new code -- which hasn't been chosen yet -- would start next December. By May 1999, the new code's use would be mandatory. The Public Utilities Commission action had been recommended by Commissioner Tim Hay who presided over several hearings on the proposal. While some northern Nevadans aren't happy with the plan, the PUC's staff has endorsed it providing there's adequate public notice. The staff and the attorney general's office also asked for a delay until late 2000 before callers using a 702 for a northern Nevada call get a recording telling them their call didn't go through. Doug Hescox, area code administrator for Nevada and California, hasn't divulged options for the new code. But he said a "lucky" 777 or a code close to the old 702 -- like 701 or 703 -- are already reserved or in use elsewhere. Critics had argued earlier that the change will create hassles for many state agencies as well as some local government offices in northern Nevada, and northern Nevadans in general shouldn't be inconvenienced by a change made necessary mainly by southern Nevada's rapid growth. But suggestions that the new code be given to the Las Vegas area were opposed by top Clark County officials. Hescox has said the aproved plan will mean a new code for about 2 million phone numbers in the north. The 702 code will be kept for another 3 million numbers in the south. That's in line with a policy of trying to keep the disruption caused by new codes limited to the least number of phone customers possible. Hescox also said no additional codes should be needed in Nevada for several years at a minimum. ------------------------------ Subject: US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:30:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal regulators said Thursday they had warned more than 1,000 senders of junk e-mail not to distribute fraudulent or deceptive offers. The Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Postal Service said the warnings followed a review of more than 60,000 questionable e-mail offerings that were forwarded to them by consumers. "The FTC is on the Internet beat and will follow up with spam artists who don't clean up their correspondence," Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's consumer protection division, said. The junk e-mail pitched a wide array of scams, from illegal pyramid investment schemes to bogus job offers and loans. Internet users who received the mail forwarded it to the FTC at a special mailbox, uce+ftc.gov, set up to help track online schemes. While the e-mail pitches reviewed likely violated the law, the agencies lacked the resources to pursue every case, an official explained. Instead, the agencies sought the names and addresses of the senders and issued warnings. The agencies would likely commence legal proceedings if they receive further evidence that a junk e-mailer had ignored the warning, the official said. The move followed a similiar warning issued in 1996 to more than 500 Web site operators promoting pyramid schemes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:59:32 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Country Code +423 for Liechtenstein Although the ITU now charges a subscription fee for (username and password required) web-access to its twice-a-month "Operational Bulletin" and even for basic _lists_ of country-codes (telephone, telex, data networks, SS7 codes, international telephone calling-card issuer-identifier, mobile networks, etc.), they do allow viewing of the _table-of-contents_ page (only) of the Operational Bulletin, beginning with Issue #648 (15-July-1997). The "main menu" URL for links to specific years of Operational Bulletins, for links to the (username/password) required Bulletins themselves (and "Annex" lists), as well as the free (_NO_ password required) 'Table-of-Contents' pages, is: http://www.itu.ch/itudoc/itu-t/ob-lists/op-bull.html In the Table-of-Contents for Operational Bulletin #660 (15-JAN-1998) http://www.itu.ch/itudoc/itu-t/ob-lists/op-bull/1998/tocob660_e_66543.html there is mention under 'TSB: Telephone Service' of the following: "Liechtenstein/Switzerland (SWISSCOM, Berne, Suisse - Advance Notification regarding the introduction of country code +423 for telephony (ITU-T E.164) in the Principality of Liechtenstein)" I have no further information as to dates that this will take effect, nor if the Country Code change will be a 'flash' cut or permissive 'parallel' dialing cut. Nor do I know if Liechtenstein will continue to use code (0)75 (its present Area Code within +41 Switzerland) within its own new +423 Country Code. [Does anybody know what the local number length (not including the +41-75-) is currently used in Liechtenstein?] Liechtenstein has shared Switzerland's +41 Country Code for decades, probably ever since the CCITT/ITU first developed and standardized the worldwide telephone country-code format, circa 1964. Since Czech and Slovakia split apart politically _and_ telephonically, +420 is Czech and +421 is Slovakia. I wonder if +422 is assigned or reserved for anything specific in Europe. Maybe for Denmark's Greenland (presently +299) or Denmark's Faeroe Islands (presently +298)? IIRC, there are also some other vacant +38x country-codes. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Jim Cobban Subject: Re: Moscow Phone History Date: 5 Feb 1998 19:10:48 GMT Organization: Nortel In article , Leonid A. Broukhis wrote: > I'm translating this from a Russian online technical tidbits review by > Dmitry Zavalishin (http://koi8.excimer.ru/dz/online/on-28-01-98.htm): > [...] Moscow telephony is more than 100 years old. This is practically > not interesting. Interesting is that today [i.e. 1/28 - L.B.] the last > in Moscow, and probably in the whole world, "machine" exchange is > being dismantled. The machine exchange is a horrible beast, put in > service in 1931, which design predates even the oldest step exchanges > (nowadays hard to find by themselves). The aforementioned machine > exchange (located on the Ordynka street) - the first automatic one in > Moscow. > It worked, as can be easily computed, SIXTY SEVEN YEARS. The Moscow > City Phone Network authority had no possibility to replace it earlier. >PS. Now the question: what is "machine" exchange? I have heard that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1918 that Moscow had just installed a brand new Ericsson telephone switch. For the next seven decades there was no further technical development. As demand grew for additional lines the telephone administration simply replicated the mechanical design of that 1918 vintage switch. As in most areas of Soviet life, with the exception of the military where necessity forced an exception, it was impossible to admit the superiority of the decadent, bourgeois, capitalist technology of the West. Jim Cobban | jcobban@nortel.ca | Phone: (613) 763-8013 Nortel (MCS) | | FAX: (613) 763-5199 | "I am not a number. I am a human being!" | P. McGoohan, "The Prisoner" ------------------------------ From: Lynn Waters Recruiting Subject: Call Center Designers - Renowned Firm Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:36:17 -0600 Organization: LISCO Reply-To: lwr@lisco.com Progressive, world-renowned firm now has senior positions for individuals with Call Center design experience. If you have experience in Call Center planning, design, and implementation, we'd like to talk with you! We're looking for someone with extensive experience in PBX/ACD, CTI, and interactive voice response, as well as project management (including personnel supervision and work planning). This renowned firm seeks self-starters with excellent interpersonal skills and leadership abilities. State-of-the-art training provided every year. These positions are full travel--you can reside anywhere in the U.S., as long as you're near a major airport. We're looking for talented individuals with these further qualifications: <> Minimum 5 years of professional, commercial experience <> B.S. or B.A. in computer science or related degree--GPA 3.0 <> U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. (Please indicate your citizenship status on your resume in order to be considered.) Please use a descriptive file name that includes your last name when e-mailing your resume. Thank you. See our Web site at http://www.lisco.com/lwr Inquire to: Lynn Waters Recruiting email: lwr@lisco.com phone: (515) 472-3021 (800) 316-7599 fax: (515) 469-3361 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 11:09:20 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Area Code 225 for Baton Rouge LA WWL-Radio/870 announced on Thursday 5 February, in the 11:00am (Central) hourly news that the La.PSC has announced that 225 will be the new NPA code for the Baton Rouge area. There were no permissive/mandatory dates announced, and a call to the La.PSC's 800 number (in Baton Rouge) didn't reveal anything. The woman who answered didn't seem to know that 225 was going to be the new NPA code. The La.PSC held a press conference at 9:00am (Central) on Thursday, at a hotel in the Baton Rouge area, but the receptionists at the PSC didn't seem to have any information. (She even asked me what WWl-Radio said the new code would be). Rumor has it from a contact I have in the industry that permissive dialing will begin in August 1998, with mandatory dialing in April 1999. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:16:36 AST From: Robert Speirs Subject: IIA-A company : InfoInterActive Inc URL : http://www.interactive.ca/ symbol : IIA exchange: ASE Internet Call Manager..."Best of Show"...at Comdex/Toronto. - Sandy McMurray, Toronto Sun, 16 July 1997 On Wednesday 4 February 1998, InfoInterActive Inc (IIA) announced that William H.R. Smith had accepted the position of Chairman of the Board, replacing Sidney (Sid) P. Dutchack, who will remain on the board. Mr. Smith was formerly vice- president (Atlantic Canada) of Northern Telecom. In his new capacity as chairman, Mr. Smith announced that J. Murray Souter has joined the board of directors. Mr. Souter is vice-president for consumer services at Maritime Tel & Tel (MT&T). Prior to joining MT&T in 1997, Mr. Souter was vice-president of sales and marketing at Reebok Canada, and at Bauer Canada. Resigning from the board are Grant Kook and Kenneth Noland. The board has also approved two appointments to the management team: Michael D. Smith has been appointed executive vice-president and general manager. Mr. Smith previously held marketing and investment positions at MT&T and at Procter & Gamble. Donald A. Chisholm has been appointed vice-president of research and development. IIA has completed a private placement of 100,000 units at C$0.41 for gross proceeds of C$41,000. Each unit consists on one common share and one warrant. Each warrant entitles the holder to acquire one common share at C$0.45 expiring two years after issuance. On Tuesday 6 January 1998, IIA was named by Internet Stock Review as one of the top twenty Internet stocks to watch in 1998. Business Wire stated -- Imagine this: You are at home on the Internet (you have only one line). Someone calls you, and a box pops up on your screen with caller ID. You see the name and can choose "Take the call" or "Have them call back." The caller hears, "The person you are calling is on the line; he sees you are calling and has indicated he will call you back from the number you are calling from," or "The person you are calling is on the line; he sees you are calling and has indicated he would like you to call back in a few moments when the line is free." See it live at the company's website. For more information, contact: Roland Perry Internet Stock Review c/o Perry & Co suite 200 468 Camden Dr N Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA tel:(310)285-1778 "Roland Perry" On Friday 12 December 1997, IIA announced that a major US telephone company will immediately begin market trials of Internet Call Manager (ICM). Under the agreement, the US phone company will have the exclusive right to sell ICM directly to its own customers, with IIA sharing revenues. Upon successful completion of the market trial, both companies intend to cooperate in further expansion of the service in the US. On Monday 1 December 1997, IIA announced that, for the first nine months of 1997 ending 30 September, IIA reported a net loss of C$892,262 on revenues of C$62,769 or a loss of C$0.10 per share. During the same period last year, IIA reported a loss of C$445,966 on revenues of C$63,609 or a loss of C$0.01 per share. The current loss is a result of the IIA's continued capital spending on customer acquisition and new market development for its ICM service. IIA is pleased with the level of customer interest and satisfaction with ICM, however, the cost of customer acquisition in the early stages of service deployment is higher than expected. IIA believes that these costs will be reduced in the fourth quarter and beyond as it increases serving areas and achieves efficiencies in advertising programs. IIA expects that, in the fourth quarter, ending 31 December 1997, ICM will be available in New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta, bringing the number of total provinces in Canada served to seven, and the available market to over one million Internet connected homes. Efforts are continuing to introduce ICM in the US and the company expects to begin a trial in a major US city in December in cooperation with two US telecommunications companies. IIA has made an addition to its management team with the hiring of Michael Smith as executive vice president. Mr. Smith was employed by MT&T, where he held positions in marketing and new investment opportunity analysis. He played a key role in facilitating the MT&T investment in the IIA. Mr Smith will hold prime responsibility for the company's ongoing partnership with MT&T. On Monday 24 November, 1997, IIA announced that ICM was available for the first time in New Brunswick, Canada. ICM requires an NBTel feature called Call Forward Busy service at a cost of C$2 per month. IIA automatically activates the feature on behalf of the customer when they order ICM. ICM can save Internet users in New Brunswick more than C$175 annually, compared to the cost of a second line from NB Tel. For New Brunswick residents, the service is available only from IIA. In Nova Scotia, it is provided in conjunction with MT&T. On Thursday 25 September 1997, IIA announced that it had released an even more powerful version of its popular ICM service in the Greater Toronto Area. ICM Deluxe (Version 4) adds two powerful functionality features - the ability to take calls as they come in, and an integrated twenty-four hours voice-mail service which works just like telephone company voice mail. Users of ICM Deluxe no longer need to subscribe to the telephone company voice-mail service, thus reducing their phone bill by approximately C$5 per month. On Wednesday 24 September 1997, IIA announced that it had signed an agent agreement with HookUp Communications (HU-T) to distribute its ICM service to its dial-up Internet customers. On Wednesday 10 September 1997, IIA announced that iStar Internet (WWW-T) , Canada's leading Internet solutions company, will be the first ISP to introduce ICM to its customers under IIA's new distribution program that has been designed especially for Internet service providers (ISPs). The agent program permits Internet service providers to add value to their services and earn incremental revenue without any capital costs. Under the program, IIA provides all customer service, billing and technical support enabling ISPs to focus on their core business activities. ICM is the only service that solves the busy phone line problem that is experienced by the majority of Internet users. Users of ICM are able to monitor their incoming calls while their line is busy during an Internet session. As a result, ICM users benefit in two important ways: first, ICM users no longer miss important calls because of a busy phone line and second, there is no longer a need for an expensive second phone line. When an ICM user receives a call while his/her line is busy on the Internet, the call is automatically re-directed to IIA's ICM server. The ICM server collects the caller information and sends it to the Internet to the user's computer screen. While the caller hears the normal ringing signal, the user is presented with the caller's ID ( the name and number of the calling party ) on the screen. Once notified of the call, users can then choose to acknowledge the caller by selecting a courtesy message which tells the caller that they are on the phone and that they will call back. The user has the following options when a call comes in while the line is busy: Call Accept - The caller hears a brief message indicating that the person has seen their call and will take it momentarily. The user's Internet session is logged off and ICM then transfers the call to the user telephone line. After the call, the Internet session can resume normally. This option is perfect for important calls. Call Transfer - The user can transfer the call to a free line, such as a cellular phone or other line. This is great for users who do not want to publish their cellular telephone number, using it sparingly for calls while on the Internet. Voice Mailbox: When ICM users would prefer to talk with the caller later they can simply ignore the call and allow it to transfer to their personal voice-mailbox. Messages can be retrieved by phone later using a simple push-button interface. This same voice mailbox also takes messages when the user is not on the Internet, and uses the special lamp on many new phones indicating a message is waiting. It is a great solution for taking messages when the line is busy, unlike an answering machine. Call Acknowledge: The caller hears a special message, the user sets up letting the caller know that they are on the Internet and to please leave a message. Call Logging: All calls are conveniently logged with the time, date, and the calling name and number. The service works with most popular dial-up Internet service providers and browser software. Customers do not need to subscribe to Call Waiting or Caller-ID from their local telephone company and there is no need for special multimedia hardware or software. The ICM client software is available for Windows 95 and Windows 3.1x. ICM Version 3 service is priced at C$4.99 per month or C$19.95 for six months, and is available to most users in Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. ICM Deluxe Version 4 service is priced at C$6.49 per month or the equivalent of C$5.49 per month for six months, and is available in the greater Toronto area. In Bell Canada territory, customers are subject to an additional charge of C$1.50 per month feature access charge. Interested parties can visit the company's website to sign up for a free thirty days trial of the service. Customers, industry watchers and consumer advocates across Canada have been enthusiastic about ICM to date. For more information, contact: William (Bill) McMullin President InfoInterActive Inc Sun Tower suite 604, 1550 Bedford Hwy Bedford, NS B4A 1E6 Canada tel:(902)832-1014/832-1611/1-800-270-1014 ext.21 fax:(902)832-1015 bill@interactive.ca http://www.interactive.ca/ For research, see: http://chebucto.ns.ca/~speirs/iia-a.html - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THIS ARTICLE WAS NOT SOLICITED NOR DISSEMINATED BY INFOINTERACTIVE. IT WAS DISSEMINATED BY ROBERT SPEIRS , EDITOR AND PUBLISHER OF SMALL-CAP STOCK ANALYST REPORT. ROBERT SPEIRS IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH INFOINTERACTIVE. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 01:27:54 +0800 From: Alex Pang Subject: The Deliberalisation in Hong Kong Dear Sirs, I am writing to ask for some advices from the people who are enjoying cheaper telecommuncation services in U.S. Hong Kong's international telephone service is now monopolised by a comglomerate called Hong Kong Telecom International. It's exclusivity will not expired until the fall of 2006. However, the government are going to get back this franchise and will pay back about one billion U.S.dollars in cash to the company. In addition, the comglomete is also a major carrier in the fixed telephone network service licencee in Hong Kong, and a comparatively low service charges were enjoyed deal to the cross-subsidy by long distance call. With the deliberation of the international communication service, the government allow the comglomerate to increase the local fixed line telephone service charge by 30% next year. The service charge will soar by 60% in the next three years. On the contrary, government told the publice that people can save more than two billion US dollars in long distance call after introducing competition in that service. My query is: 1) The prices of long term distance call here in Hong Kong provided by "call back" service and other fixed line network services licensee (through Hong Kong Telecom International) have already make it possible for people to enjoy a comparatively cheap long distance call service. Can people save up such a lot of money by introducing competition in the sence that new gateways were introduced here in Hong Kong 2)Is there any bitter experience in local or long distance telecommunication services in U.S. after the liberalization of the telecom market in U.S. or somewhere else? Please tell me your experience at the e-mail address: pky@asiaonline.net or newsmag@netvigator.com Thank you so much! Alex Pang A journalist in Hong Kong [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Is there any bitter experience in telecom service in the USA since divesture? ...' Is that your question? .... oooh .... are there stories that could be told. I'm sure some readers here will respond with all the lurid details. But in fairness, much good has come of it also. Readers who want to reply direct to Mr. Pang are encouraged to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #27 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Feb 8 16:56:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA00489; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:56:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:56:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802082156.QAA00489@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #28 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Feb 98 16:56:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Two Michigan Bills Affecting Sales Calls Raise Ire (Tad Cook Fargo, N.D.-Based Internet-Based Marketing Group Vanishes (Tad Cook) PUC Texas Rules on ISP Calls (Linc Madison) V.90 "56K" Modems Accepted by ITU (Ed Ellers) ITU Announces 56K Modem Standard (oldbear@arctos.com) Possible Scam? (Stanri@worldnet.att.net) UCLA Short Course on "Mobile Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin) LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges (Bruce L. Wilson) It's Not Distinctive Ringing, But What is it? (Laurence V. Marks) Last Laugh: Those Spotless Finns (James Bellaire) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Two Michigan Bills Affecting Sales Calls Raise Ire Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 22:26:51 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Deborah Solomon, Detroit Free Press Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 7--Some small business owners are upset with two bills being considered by the Legislature that would require telephone solicitors to pay a $200 one-time fee, register with the state and post a $25,000 surety bond to operate here. The politicians who proposed the legislation say it's intended to help consumers avoid being bothered and scammed by telemarketers, but some small business owners say the bills would place too heavy a burden on companies. "These new regulations and fee structures will impede business growth in the state," said Ann Parker, director of government relations for the Small Business Association of Michigan. "We understand that there are bad actors out there, but we don't think restrictions on legitimate businesses is the answer." This is the second bill aimed at telemarketers to be introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives in recent months. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that would require telemarketers to buy a list of Michigan residents who don't want to be solicited on the phone. Any company that called a person on the list could be fined up to $250, and consumers also could sue the company for up to $500. The Senate is considering the bill. "Some companies, primarily smaller ones that specialize in landscaping, vinyl siding or asphalting driveways typically use the phone to solicit business," Parker said. "These laws will hurt them." She said many small businesses can't afford to pay a $200 fee or get a $25,000 surety bond. And restricting which consumers can be called would destroy many companies whose business relies on "cold calls." Legislators say it's the consumers who are being harmed by telemarketers, many of whom engage in scams and call people at all hours of the day. They say the $25,000 surety bond is necessary to ensure that a company that scams consumers pays its fine. "I was home trying to clean house on Saturday and I received eleven phone calls trying to get me to take a credit card," said Michigan Rep. Eileen DeHart, D-Westland. DeHart sponsored the legislation that passed the House last year and said she supports the bill that's being considered now. That bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Wojno, D-Warren. "Telemarketing is becoming absolutely horrible, especially with seniors who are targets," DeHart said. She said neither bill would prohibit legitimate companies from doing business by phone. "The $200 annual fee is just pennies compared to what these companies make off people," she said. Right now, companies that want to sell a product by phone are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, not the state. If either bill becomes law, companies would have to register with the state's Department of Consumer and Industry Services, and the Attorney General's Office would handle complaints. The FTC already places restrictions on telemarketers, such as the hours they can call -- 8 am. to 9 p.m. The FTC also requires that telemarketers disclose the reason for the call and prohibits them from calling people who have asked not to be bothered. Violators face fines and other punishment. ------------------------------ Subject: Fargo, N.D.-Based Internet-Based Marketing Group Vanishes Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 02:24:10 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Jason Skog, Duluth News-Tribune, Minn. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 3--AdverWorld Inc., the Internet-based, multilevel marketing group that once whipped hundreds of wide-eyed Northlanders into a cash-crazed frenzy, seems dead. Calls to phone lines once flooded with people eager to join the upstart Fargo, N.D., firm now reach telephone numbers that have been disconnected. The effusively confident corporate officers, who once claimed to have "Adversomnia" because they were so excited about the potential, have quit and left town, leaving little or no forwarding information. And the company's former representatives -- people who paid $79 a month for a chance to profit by selling World Wide Web pages and recruiting others to do the same -- have mixed feelings. The company's fall has been difficult to track. AdverWorld's Web site hasn't been updated since July. Unless taken off a computer server, www.adverworld.com could linger in cyberspace indefinitely. The Duluth News-Tribune's efforts to contact former officers through phone books, directory assistance and leads from former business neighbors have been unsuccessful. Sean Kramer was once Adver-World's vice president of marketing. He couldn't be located in the Northland, but a Sean Kramer is listed as working with a California Internet advertising firm named Big Book Direct. A biography on the company's Web page says Kramer once was "cofounder of an Internet services company that generated over 40,000 customers in less than one year." Calls to Kramer's office weren't returned. More than a year ago, AdverWorld was drawing hundreds to seminars in Fargo, the Twin Cities, Denver and other cities. One in Duluth drew nearly 500, making the company's talk of income potential a hot topic in area bars, diners and offices. By having $79 a month withdrawn automatically from your bank account, you could purchase a Web page and reserve a spot in the company's matrix, a pyramidshaped compensation plan. The monthly fee also gave individuals the opportunity to sell others on AdverWorld's product and potential. To some, it smelled like a pyramid scheme. Almost immediately, attorneys general in North Dakota and Minnesota received inquiries. The North Dakota attorney general's office had declined to comment on the company. But on Monday, Parrell Grossman, an attorney in the Consumer Protection Division, said an investigation is under way. He would say nothing more. Gary Carlson liked the sound of AdverWorld's potential, becoming a representative almost immediately. So did thousands of others. The Duluth pull-tab operator stayed with AdverWorld for nine months, investing $79 a month and taking in an average of $50 a month from signing up others and selling Web pages. He said he thinks AdverWorld was legitimate, but lacked follow up. "We were going on the assumption that the company was going to properly train us," Carlson said. "They didn't do it." He said he's not bitter and only decided to quit when it looked like the company would be changing ownership along with the compensation structure. "A lot of people just decided to get out," Carlson said. According to AdverWorld, the company grew to 100 full-time employees and sales in excess of $2 million a month. AdverWorld also claimed to have 20,000 customers nationwide and enough requests for Web pages that they had to work nearly 24 hours a day. "What I think happened is that they got stars in their eyes too quickly because of the unbelievable growth right away," Carlson said. Talk of a change in ownership was partially true, but a Jacksonville, Fla., Web site production company canceled the deal at the last minute. "We were not interested in purchasing the company, but we were interested in purchasing the Web sites," said Ron Milburn, president of NRG Network Inc. Milburn said the deal fell through when he saw the number and quality of the company's active Web pages. NRG did conduct one of AdverWorld's automatic withdrawals from salespeople's bank accounts, but that was before NRG knew of the questions swirling around AdverWorld. "The bank held the funds to make sure that the complaints were settled," Milburn said. "We are in the process of trying to decide what to do with that money, but that money is in the bank, and we have no intention of keeping that money." AdverWorld representatives were required to authorize the automatic withdrawals. It took Gayle Koop of Duluth several weeks to cancel that arrangement after she and her husband decided to quit. In roughly 13 months, the Koops never earned a dime. They also never tried to sell a Web page or recruit others. The Koops were hoping for a cushy spot in the "matrix" where people below them could do the work and they could earn bonuses. That never happened. "We spent a lot of money making no money," Koop said. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Linc Madison From: Linc Madison Subject: PUC Texas Rules on ISP Calls Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:34:58 -0500 PUCT Commissioners rule that Internet calls are local Directs SWB to make back payments with interest to Time Warner (Austin, TX, Feb. 5, 1998) -- Texas Public Utility Commissioners today unanimously ruled that calls to Internet service providers (ISPs) are local calls, overturning a staff arbitrator's decision that such calls are interstate long distance traffic. In addition, they ruled that Southwestern Bell (SWB) must reimburse Time Warner Communications for costs incurred since June 1997 with interest. Commissioners decided that the destination, not the content, determines whether a call is local. "The decision today that calls to locally based Internet service providers are local is supported by the law, by the facts and by common sense," Chairman Pat Wood, III said in agreement with fellow commissioners Judy Walsh and Patricia Curran. The case was brought to the PUC by Time Warner Communications, a competitor in the local telecommunications market which serves ISPs. The Time Warner interconnection agreement with Southwestern Bell, which was signed in 1996 and renegotiated in September 1997, includes an agreement for reciprocal compensation. Time Warner contended that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company had withheld approximately $490,000 per month in reciprocal compensation funds due them since June 1997. Commissioners said that back payments be made with interest at 5.52 percent. Waller Creek Communications, another local service competitor, is seeking an interconnection agreement with Southwestern Bell and will be affected by the outcome of the Time Warner issue. In the competitive arena, telephone companies reimburse each other for local calls made by their customers to customers of the other company. The payment goes from the company whose customer initiates the call to the company whose customer receives the call. These reciprocal compensation agreements include per-minute charges determined in interconnection agreements, contracts laying out the prices, terms and conditions for the companies to do business together. Southwestern Bell, which serves about 78 percent of the state's access lines, contended that the issue of reciprocal compensation agreements needed examination. They argued that calls made to ISPs should not be considered local calls and therefore should not be subject to reciprocal compensation agreements that apply to local calls. The PUC staff arbitrator, Howard Siegel, decided in January that calls to Internet service providers "are in fact interstate in nature" and the local companies are jointly providing interstate access. He ruled such calls should not be subject to reciprocal compensation because there is no local revenue to share. He based his award, in part, on the jurisdiction of the Internet connections that are carried on the telephone companies' networks. He also said that competitive telephone companies who have a number of ISPs as business customers could be "gaming the system" to receive additional payments from Southwestern Bell. The arbitrator pointed out that reciprocal compensation agreements assume there is significant two-way flow of traffic between the incumbent local telephone company (Southwestern Bell) and the competitive provider (Time Warner). But with Internet service providers almost all the calls are incoming. That means that the competing company serving an ISP (Time Warner) would be entitled to large compensation payments on the incoming calls to the ISP numbers from Southwestern Bell customers while owing Southwestern Bell little in return. The Commissioners said that the basis for reciprocal compensation payments needs to be reviewed in the context of all telephone costs. "In this case, as in expanded area service, universal service funds and other cases we'll discuss today, we see that we're still driven by old world regulation," Chairman Wood said. "The time is ripe to restructure inter-industry billing. If we don't, we will constantly be in the same frustrating reactive mode in future dockets as we are today." "In the future, I would not find it in the public interest for reciprocal compensation rates to be calculated this way," said Commissioner Walsh. "The Internet is evolving and may be viewed differently in the future." Commissioner Curran said that calls that connect to the Internet are "different creatures" which may call for different rates. She noted that existing contracts should not be changed. About 14 other state commissions have considered this same issue and decided that Internet service provider calls are local and subject to reciprocal compensation agreements. In December the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that ISP calls are not subject to access charges, the charges that long distance carriers pay for connection to the local telephone network. The FCC has not ruled on the local call or reciprocal compensation questions, although it has a pending case that may address these issues. The PUC's decision today does not affect local telephone service rates. ISP subscriptions are not regulated by the PUC. In Texas' changing regulatory environment, the PUC facilitates competition and customer choice while regulating electric and telephone utilities to ensure that rates, operations and services are just and reasonable for customers. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: V.90 "56K" Modems Accepted by ITU Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:00:27 -0500 The International Telecommunication Union agreed today on the technical specifications for PCM modems (also known as 56K modems) and has initiated the formal approval process. The new Recommendation, designated V.90, is expected to be widely used for applications such as Internet and on-line service access. V.90 modems are designed for connections which are digital at one end and have only one digital-to-analogue conversion. Download speeds of up to 56,000 bits per second (bit/s) are possible, depending on telephone line conditions, with upload speeds of up to 33,600 bit/s. Manufacturers currently producing modems based on proprietary schemes have already stated they will rapidly migrate to the new standard. Work began on the development of V.90 (previously referred to as V.pcm) in the ITU-T in March 1997. "This is the shortest period of time ever taken for an ITU-T modem Recommendation to achieve 'determination' approval status, and demonstrates a commitment by the ITU-T to respond quickly to urgent market needs", said Mr. P.A. Probst, Chairman of Study Group 16. The V.90 modem harmonizes the two competing proposals submitted last year. Customers who have purchased 56kbps modems based on either technology may be able to get software to make their devices compatible with the new ones developed on the V.90 standard. ------------------------- V.90 Upgrade Announcements: 3Com (USRobotics, Megahertz) -- will have free upgrades available for all of its X2 modems; it expects that modems sold with X2 capability will take a firmware upgrade, while those sold as 33.6 modems and upgraded to X2 may need a hardware upgrade which will be supplied at no charge. Details will be posted on February 16 at http://www.3com.com/56k/. Diamond Multimedia (Supra) -- hasn't yet posted a release on its Web site, but previously has said that free firmware upgrades will be available for its 56K modems. Hayes -- has said previously that "Hayes' 56K Satisfaction program guarantees this upgrade will be available at no cost to all Hayes 56K desktop modem customers regardless of whether the upgrade requires a hardware or software change." Hayes' 56K Standard Page is at http://www.practinet.com, the former Practical Peripherals URL. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 08:50:02 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: ITU Announces 56K Modem Standard As reported in {CNN QuickNews Update} on Sunday morning, 2/8/98: INTERNATIONAL AGENCY ADOPTS A NEW MODEM STANDARD The International Telecommunication Union adopted on Saturday a new standard that will enable computer modems to operate almost twice as fast as they do now. New modems, which are already in production by major manufacturers, will operate at the speed of 56,000 bits per second, compared to current 33,600 bits. So far, manufacturers have been using two different standards that could not work with each other. The new standard is expected to boost modem sales to $75 million a year by 2000. See: < http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9802/06/modem.ap/index.html > ------------------------------ From: stanri@worldnet.att.net (Stan) Subject: Possible Scam? Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 21:18:45 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Someone sent me this the other day. I told her I didn't believe it was true. Is it? -------------- On Saturday 24 January 1998, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans' Quarterdeck received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test the Customer should touch nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, the Customer was suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company we were informed that by pushing 90# you end up giving the individual that called you access to your telephone line and this allows the scammer to place a long distance telephone call, with the charge appearing on your telephone bill. We were further informed that this scam has been originating from inmate pay phones at many of the local jails/prisons around the country. Please "pass the > word." If anyone should call you claiming to be an AT&T Service Technician,' refuse any requests that you dial any numbers. Also ask for THEIR callback number and the name of their supervisor. In turn, report this to your local telephone company. ------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is it possible? Well ... maybe, depend- ing on the configuration of the telephone switch used by the call recipient. We hear these stories from time to time, and there are always important details left out, such as if the recipient of the bogus call is on a centrex with some specialized wiring (very possible in a military environment); if the recipient's organization is served by one or another of several voicemail systems which may or may not have a bug which allows a call to be transferred to an outside line or an attendant, etc. Naturally, these stories never mention if the recipient was expected to press the switchhook first to get new dial tone or if he was expected to just press the keys in the middle of the conversation. I am reminded of the well-meaning but dim-witted memo which went around for years -- maybe it still is -- sent by corporate telecom departments warning employees against returning calls made to their pagers giving a 212-976 (or was it 212-540) number to be called back. While perhaps an important warning in New York City and the immediate environs, it was a total waste to talk about in other parts of the country for the simple reason you generally cannot call a 976 number outside your local area code. I'd say the important thing to remember here is not the specifics of any single instance -- because there are too many unknown variables involved to be able to establish a definite rule -- but rather, don't listen to fools who call you on the phone with various requests. And don't feel a bit concerned that you might be deemed uncooperative or rude to the caller. Bear in mind that a telco employee dealing with a large company has usually only one person to work with: the person in that company assigned to handle telecom stuff. He is not going to be going around to individual employees saying 'now you do this and you do that ... ' or 'tell me your password to do such and such ...' The telco employee and the telecom person for the company work together, and that is it. If you have problems with the phone service at your workstation/desk, etc you tell the person at your company about it; he either fixes it or gets telco involved. You don't bypass him and go to telco, and telco does not bypass him and come to you. If you need to get involved, the person at your company will discuss it with you. Ditto the switchboard operator: at a company whose telecom is well-managed, individual employees do not talk to a telco operator. They talk to the company operator, who if s/he is at all well-trained in handling calls, simply handles it. You need something that will involve special billing or incur an additional charge? Then you tell the company PBX/centrex operator; let that person handle the paper- work, etc so that the company is always on top of its expenses for the phone service, and always aware of who is calling whom. In summary, when a call such as described arrives on your extension at work, try to supress the giggles while you respond, "have you discussed this with Ms. Nameless, the company operator, or Mr. NoName, the telcom manager here? Let me transfer your call to them now so you can discuss what you need ... " Watch how fast that call gets terminated. And while we are on the topic, be alert to the 'office supply department' scam. That's the one where you get a call and the voice on the other end says something like, "Hi, (your first name), this is (her phone name) in the supply room. I need you to give me the serial number and model on your copy machine so I can make sure we have the right type of toner/paper in stock." What she really wants that information for is so that a telemarketer can call back a day or two later to someone else at your company with a specific pitch for the toner/paper supplies your machine uses. Permutations on this involve the model name and serial number of the printer attached to the computer, ditto for the office fax machine, etc. They are all banking on the fact that you are not going to question a 'fellow employee' in a large company who calls you by your first name using her first name asking for some help in getting her 'records up to date'. Yeah, you bet. 'Records' they have no business knowing about. It is amazing to me how many trusting souls there are in the world who assume that a voice on the other end of the phone line is legit- imate and entitled to whatever it asks for. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Mobile Satellite Communications" Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:05:57 -0800 On May 4-7, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Mobile Satellite Communications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, Hughes Space and Communications International; Raymond C.V. Macario, PhD, University of Wales, Swansea; and Jeffrey Maul, MSEE, Arthur D. Little. Each participant receives the text, "Cellular Radio: Principles and Design", by R.C.V Macario (McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., 1997), and extensive course notes. By properly integrating space and ground segments, the new class of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators are providing a wide range of personal communication services to users around the world. This course provides a comprehensive review of the technologies and systems that form the foundation for this new commercial space application. Lectures cover current geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellites as well as the leading non-GEO systems now being launched, and resolve issues relating to satellite communication subsystem design, integration of the MSS network into the PSTN, and the likely design of the handheld terminal. Basics of radio communications and space systems are also thoroughly reviewed. The course is intended to provide systems engineers and telecommunications specialists with an understanding of how MSS services are being developed and delivered throughout the world. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials and the textbook. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:30:45 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce L. Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges I finally got a response from a knowledgable person at US West after making a call to my local Congressman's local staff director. (I've been having a running battle of sorts with US West over charges on my conservatorship ward's phone bill from "ESBI" for "message retrieve" and from "USP&C" for "psychic help" which I've refused to pay and which I've demanded be removed from her bill.) I was told this activity is unregulated by the FCC and state utilities board ... then I got to thinking ... We think of the telcos as regulated, but they've actually been sheltered from some regulations applicable to others because everything they've done has been within the FCC's and state commissions' jurisdictions ... things such as the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and comparable state statutes ... and I'm curious as to what others might think about it. Subject to refreshing my memory of the specifics, I'd argue that the LEC's are mere debt collectors, obligated under the FDCPA to (1) provide substantiation of disputed charges and (2) cease collection efforts if told the debt in question won't be paid. I might also argue that various disclosures are required pursuant to it. What do you all think? Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telcos are not 'mere debt collectors' for the simple reason that the billing of charges not specifically of their own origin make up only a very small, insignificant part of their activities; a part of their activities required of them under existing telecom law. A 'debt collector' by definition is an organi- zation or person who voluntarily engages in the collection of third- party -- i.e. not incurred under his auspices as a 'merchant' -- debts as his principle, or exclusive business activity. An attorney who among other activities collects debts on a third-party basis for one or more of his clients was previously not considered a 'debt collector' under the legal sense of the term; but for the past few years attornies have been subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the same as any 'mere debt collector'. The FDCPA clearly gives a legal definition for 'debt collector'. A telco is not one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lmarks@raleigh.ibm.com (Laurence V. Marks) Subject: It's Not Distinctive Ringing, But What is it? Date: 8 Feb 1998 02:46:58 GMT Organization: IBM Networking Hardware Division RTP, NC Reply-To: lmarks@raleigh.ibm.com (Laurence V. Marks) I would like to find specifications or definitions for a particular (POTS) phone service. It's the service where you have a single line with multiple Directory Numbers (DNs) and the instruments ring with a different cadence depending on which number was dialed. In North Carolina, this service is marketed as Ringmaster. In Maryland, it's marketed as Ident-A-Ring. I __thought__ this service was called Distinctive Ringing, so I ordered the Bellcore publication: TR-TSY-000219 CLASS FEATURE: DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING dated Jun 1993. It turns out that this publication describes a different feature, in which you record a series of numbers with the switch (e.g., your mother-in-law), and when you are called by any of those numbers, your phone rings (or call-waiting beeps) with a unique cadence. That is, the distinctive ringing is based on the Calling Party DN, not the Called Party DN. (This document does hint that there may be feature-interaction with the multiple DN feature, but does not give a reference to any publication.) Then I looked through our LSSGR (admittedly a little old -- it's 1985-1987). I read all of the Feature Service Descriptions (FSDs), and again I found DR/CW described as a service in which the subscriber enters numbers at the switch, and again I found (in one or two places) cryptic remarks regarding the multiple DN feature, but no references to publications. I would really like to get this specification. Can anyone help? Laurence V. Marks IBM Corp. - Research Triangle Park, NC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are two 'distinctive ringing' type services. One is triggered by the calling number (you list up to ten numbers, which when they call you, force a distinctive ring. This depends on the ability of the switch serving you to know what number is calling; i.e. the call-screening, caller-id, return last call received type of thing. The other service doesn't require the switch to have any clue at all about the number calling you. All it is dealing with is a 'party line' type arrangement, where all the parties on the line terminate on the same wires and same instruments. Like the old party lines, two or more different phone numbers are assigned to the same line, (I think the maximum is four) and each number causes the phone to ring with its own specific cadence. If any one of the numbers is in use, then all the numbers are busy. The first service is intended to isolate and identify specific people who are either VIPs (or nuisances) in your life. The special ring (all such parties cause the same special ring) alerts you to a call you either want to take right away or not take at all. Why people would use this instead of simply gleaning the same -- actually more specific -- information by looking at the caller-id readout I do not understand. With this scheme you don't know if it is your hateful mother-in-law or your new boss calling; just that it is someone outside the normal flow in your life. Caller-id would answer the same questions more precisely. The second service is intended for two or more people sharing the same phone line or a person running a business at home on the same phone line as used for his personal calls. The ringing cadence helps detirmine the appropriate answer-phrase. While caller-id adds to the usefulness of this service, it is not a replacement since calls to any of the numbers (the main one or the numbers camped on) could come from anywhere. Why, precisely, a person would try to run a business out of his home on the same physical talk-to-only-one- person-at-a-time instrument used by his kids, his wife and himself is beyond me. I'd prefer the flexibility of two or more lines/instru- ments hunting back and forth to each other anytime. This service is good if you have a line dedicated to 'data'; a number for the fax and a number for the computer can ring into a device which can tell the difference and route the calls is available. When you order either of these, they go by various names such as 'multi-line ring' 'distinctive-ring', 'identa-ring', 'identa-call' and others. Make sure the business office understands exactly which you want. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 07:48:07 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Last Laugh: Those Spotless Finns This might be of interest to the Telecom DIGEST crowd: From: phil.henry@telcore.demon.co.uk (phil henry) Newsgroups: uk.telecom.mobile Subject: Those spotless Finns Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:46:34 GMT Organization: telcore Message-ID: <34d78fb8.39394153@news.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: phil.henry@telcore.demon.co.uk Telecom Finland is testing a GSM service that allows subscribers to dial a premium rate number when they drive into a car wash. The network activates the car wash and bills them. phil henry ------------ James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Updated February 1998 with new landline maps and NPANXX lists for IN * ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #28 ***************************** From: editor@telecom-digest.org Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA12317; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:48:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:48:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802090048.TAA12317@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #29 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Feb 98 19:48:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nextel Communications (Zoran K. Basich) Cellular Telephone Basics and Telephone History (Tom Farley) Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing (Anthony Argyriou) Cell Bandwidth in the SF Bay Area (Wulf Losee) Re: 877 Replication Report (Aaron Woolfson) Re: US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Area Code 225 for Baton Rouge LA (Chris Boone) Blocked 800 Calls From Payphones and Hotels? (edm@barneyboller.com) 800 Number Billing Scams (Ron Walter) Long Distance Cost Structures (James M. Kaplan) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Joe Novosel) Re: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: FCC Surcharge and Complaints (Derek Balling) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:02:32 -0800 From: Zoran K Basich Reply-To: miscltd@pacbell.net Subject: Nextel Communications I am looking for information on Nextel Communications on the problems that they have had with the cellular service that has been offered, especially regarding roaming across country. I would greatly appreciate any help on this matter. Thank you in advance. Tyler Basich ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 15:18:17 -0800 From: Tom Farley Subject: Cellular Telephone Basics and Telephone History Hello, Pat. Long time no e-mail. I've finally built my own web site. It's at http://midtown.net/tomfarley. I've revised and put up an article on cellular telephone basics that originated with private line magazine. I've managed to put in most of the black and white illustrations that went along with it. I think it's fairly comprehensive and it is at http://midtown.net/tomfarley/Cellbasics.html I've also put up a longish article on telephone history. This was to be the first chapter of a book on telecom I did not finished. It, too, is illustrated and all original.It is at http://midtown.net/History1.html There is also a clip art collection at the site with many telecom related images that will do well for web work and just plain interest. That's at http://midtown.net/tomfarley/clipart.html. Best of luck to you and the entire telecom community. Tom Farley [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of us had been wondering where you went and what you were doing now. The issues of {Private Line} that you edited and published made very good reading. Two or three issues of your e-zine are on file in the Telecom Archives. I hope we will be hearing more from you soon. Your article on 'prison phone technology' was really great and is one of the items on file in the archives. Please stay in touch! PAT] ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 20:26:00 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com David W. Levenson wrote: > A more interesting problem is that the price of a call often depends > upon who is paying it. An AT&T customer who subscribes to OneRate(tm) > service will pay less than an AT&T customer who does not. But the > price quote offered via the network must be given before the customer > enters the billing information. For this case, the rule allows a > carrier who cannot announce the actual price to quote the highest > price it might charge for the call ... This seems to me to be legitimate grounds for complaint about the FCC's proposed rules -- would you want to be the person at AT&T who has to explain to all their OneRate/etc customers why the rate quoted is _not_ the rate they're really going to pay? Of course, AT&T doesn't seem to be complaining about that. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:54:01 -0800 From: Wulf Losee Reply-To: wulf@CERF.NET Subject: Cell Bandwidth in the SF Bay Area Recently I moved north from LA to the East Bay Area with my AirTouch cellular phone. I haven't discontinued my LA service, yet, and I decided to accept roaming charges until I get new cellular service up here in the Bay Area. However, I've discovered that it's almost impossible to get a phone call in on the cells up here. It will take me over twenty tries before I find a cell that isn't busy. I'm hoping this is an AirTouch problem -- which will disappear if I were to move over to one of the other carriers. I don't want to move over to another cellular provider and discover I can't use their service most of the time. My question is this: Have there been any evaluations done of cell availability by carrier (in the Bay Area) which I could consult before I select my carrier? Thanks, Wulf ------------------------------ From: telone@shout.net (Aaron Woolfson) Subject: Re: 877 Replication Report Date: 6 Feb 1998 17:13:18 GMT Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies, Inc. Gee ... perhaps all of the exchanges ought to be made free. Then people can reserve all of the potential combinations in *ALL* the exchanged which spell out something. Who cares if you call (800) FLOWERS or (887) FLOWERS or (217) FLOWERS ... they'd be all the same, and then the NPA would become NPAX Nxx and heck, let's just reserve all of those also. Just a thought. I think there are certain telephone carriers which are particularily slimy about shelving (800) numbers, including one which I know the owner of, which has about 2000 numbers on reserve pointing to nothing but dead air --- that's right. How Annoying! Aaron Woolfson ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings Date: 7 Feb 1998 23:58:40 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Tad Cook wrote: > While the e-mail pitches reviewed likely violated the law, the > agencies lacked the resources to pursue every case, an official > explained. Instead, the agencies sought the names and addresses of the > senders and issued warnings. > The agencies would likely commence legal proceedings if they receive > further evidence that a junk e-mailer had ignored the warning, the > official said. > The move followed a similiar warning issued in 1996 to more than 500 > Web site operators promoting pyramid schemes. One wonders how many of the same alleged violators were on the 1996 list as are on the current list. And, if the federal government learned a lesson as to what tactics have been effective in enforcing this law, and which ones aren't. Or, is publicizing "stern warnings" just an attempt at PR by the Postal Inspection Service and the FTC? ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Area Code 225 for Baton Rouge LA Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:01:07 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering From a good friend of mine, here is the info ... > Chris, > Thanks for the note on the area code. The new 225 area covers > 10 parishes > (counties) in and around Baton Rouge. > Permissive date is Monday, August 17, 1998. > Mandatory date is Monday April 5, 1999. > Regards > George Sells W8GQ > WAFB-TV Baton Rouge George is the anchor of their nightly newscasts! ------------------------------ From: Ed M Subject: Blocked 800 Calls From Payphones and Hotels? Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:30:25 -0500 Organization: Netcom Recently I've received several complaints from people trying to call our 800 number from payphones and hotels. In one case they were asked to enter a code after dialing the 800 number (we have none) and in another case reorder busy was returned. Does anyone have any clue about what this could be? Is it legal for hotels to block 800 numbers? Does the recent ruling about LD carriers charging the owner of the 800 number for calls from payphones have any impact on this? The carrier is Worldcom and the termination is on a T1. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When trying to answer questions like this it is always important to know as precisely as possible the origin of the attempted calls. It helps to know *who* sent back the re-order, *who* requested the code number, etc. I cannot see any par- ticular incentive for a hotel/motel to block 800 numbers since most will charge at least fifty cents or a dollar for calling them anyway, even without making a commmission on the call itself. There is one motel in the north suburbs of Chicago I know of where the owners have blocked 800 numbers on their PBX from guest room phones, but they have at least some rationale: they got stuck for several thousand dollars in charges by a guest who dialed a sex line and agreed to accept 'collect' charges for a call that went on for two days with several people taking part in the 'call'. I've tried to work with the owner and reason with him over the past couple months on this, and explained other options such as 'billed number screening' which could be used to avoid this in the future. He is presently in litigation with the guest over this and to make matters worse, he is a stubborn old man. He provides pay phones around the building, and in general discourages outgoing calls of any kind through the PBX. I suspect there is a routing/translation problem somewhere which is sending some calls to another number in error such as one of the 800 numbers-in-common MCI has for customers where they are to enter a PIN and be connected. The re-order tone is common when the dip to the database fails for whatever reason. For example, on my own 800 number (yes, I have one, and do you suppose I would *ever* print it in this journal after the hateful tricks which have been suggested to shag away spammers?) I've tested it at 3:00 AM only to get re-order tone on a dozen or more attempts to reach it made in succession. I go to bed, wake up in the morning and try it again, and the call goes through just fine. I found out later a couple of those re-order failures were due to the database being unreachable for some reason and a couple were due to my carrier being offline for some maintain- ence. If you could try to develop a chronology on this it would be helpful. Ask the complainers (that's what telco calls them, so why shouldn't I?) for more specifics. Time of day? Number called from if known? Hotel switchboard? What did you dial to get out of the PBX? Are there other restrictions on outgoing calls in the hotel, such as a security depost being required before the phone in the room is turned on? Did it happen just once or several times? Always from the same phone or different phones? Get all the details you can. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 18:00:00 +0000 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Subject: 800 Number Billing Scams A customer of ours is a small college that provides telephone service to the dormitory through a PBX. They have been getting hit with bills from third party billings for services that are accessed via 800 numbers. (Integretel is a regularly-appearing billing company). US West tells us that there is not way to stop these third party billing companies from billing their account. I need to know if anyone has any ideas what a place can do to protect themselves from these kind of charges. The best thing that comes to mind is blocking calls to specific numbers -- if that is the case does anyone know of any place that keeps a database of regular offenders? I know that if this is the only answer, one would have to be keep constantly on guard to new numbers that pop up. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The local telco can and will on request place 'billed number screening' on all the lines of the PBX on request. This block will be honored by the major long distance carriers and the Bells. Integratel does not check the negative list maintained by the other carriers but does maintain one of its own. A month or two ago, someone printed here a list of the phone numbers to call at each of the independent billing aggregators like Integratel that one could call to be placed on their negative lists. Tell the telecom admin at the school for now to call the billing number listed on the bill for Integratel with a list of every number on the switch- board and a demand that all be blocked. Integratel will do it for free. Do the same with other carriers listed, and above all, make sure the local telco adds it in the database they share with AT&T/ MCI/Sprint for this purpose. Yes, AT&T isn't above slipping it to you in the same way when they can if you have not negative 'optioned-out' by getting added to the list. Maybe someone with that list which was printed here a while back will mail you a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 14:43:11 -0500 From: James M. Kaplan Subject: Long Distance Cost Structures Are there any sources (free or non-free) of cost structures for L/D carriers that are worth investigating? James M. Kaplan Senior Consultant Telecom & Media Practice Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group voice - (212) 436-6935 pager - (888) 665-7328 fax - (212) 436-5958 email - kaplan37@pobox.com ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:59:28 -0500 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com The FCC ordered that businesses with more than one phone line are supposed to pay $2.75 per line; residents, should pay 53 cents for one line as well, and $1.50 for each additional line. However, according to an article in the {Washington Post}, MCI officials say they have no way of knowing how many phone lines their customers have. They blame local phone companies for delays in providing that data, and also said MCI needs time to develop the proper billing software. Until that happens, District-based MCI has decided to "estimate," based on the size of each business customer's monthly bills, new fees ranging from 13 percent to 30 percent of monthly charges. So if a company runs up $800 a month in charges from its toll-free 800 number ring to one POTS line, MCI's formula treats the company as if it has multiple phone lines and charges it accordingly. (The article relates the story of one Rick Davis, general manager of a small electronics store in Charleston, S.C., who got a big surprise when he opened the company's January phone bill: His long-distance carrier, MCI Communications Corp., charged the company $104.06 for a new federal "National Access Fee." But for the store's single phone line, Davis, under the FCC's plan, should have been charged just 53 cents, not $104. MCI would not refund his money, and his only option was to change carriers.) MCI's residential customers are paying more than the FCC ordered as well: Instead of being charged 53 cents if they have just one phone line, every MCI customer will pay $1.07, because MCI can't figure out how many phone lines each customer has. "We don't have the data right now to be able to know precisely the difference between a first and second line, or even exactly how many lines the customers have," said Jonathan Sallet, MCI's chief policy counsel. "And so we are doing the best we can to do an estimate, fairly applied across the customer base, of what is necessary to recover the funds we will have to pay." FCC officials, the article says, are upset about being blamed by MCI for the new charges. The agency maintains that the universal service fees technically are charged to local telephone companies, such as Bell Atlantic Corp., which are authorized to seek compensation from long-distance carriers. It's up to MCI and other long-distance companies to decide how to pay, the FCC contends. Warned FCC Commissioner Susan Ness: "Carriers better sharpen their pencils and think twice about what they're putting on customers' bills and attributing to government action." It's unclear whether other long-distance carriers are charging customers the new fees based on customers' revenue. AT&T Corp. officials said their company is not: It is levying the new fees, ranging from 53 cents to $5.50 monthly, according to customers' calling plans, until they can get better data on how many phone lines each customer owns. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The daily news service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://www.icbtollfree.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, regards the 'owner of the small electronics store' who got that bill, why is it saying he could not get a refund from MCI? Who in the hell would even have paid it to start with? He should have put an immediate freeze on payment of ANY PORTION of the bill to MCI until they got it straightened out, and let them hound him. Nuts to the business of having to seek a refund. Second, why are these carriers claiming they have no way to tell how many lines each person has? Since they are looking at the customer's bill to see what the total charges are, why not just look and see how many different phone numbers (for that customer) were used to call via their service that month. If the customer's record shows that three lines were used, then charge on the basis of three lines. Am I unclear on the concept here? Third, for the benefit of MCI and the other shysters in the industry, there is a VERY STERN federal law against ever collecting money and blaming it on 'taxes' when in fact the tax does not exist at all or is in some lesser amount than the amount being claimed as part of the collection from customers. That is to say, you come into my place of business and purchase an item marked one dollar. At the register you are charged,let's say, $1.25 and I say to you the difference is due to 'taxes'. The taxes are actually eight percent or eight cents and I pocket the other seventeen cents. The government has a beef with me for doing this. I forget the number of the law in the federal code; maybe a lawyer can look it up. It is a crime to collect money for legitimate, existing taxes and then pocket the money; it is another, equally serious crime to claim taxes are due in some amount when there is no such tax at all. The government does not like it ... of course MCI does a better job of sucking up than the average storefront merchant. Which brings me to point four: if you suggest to your customers or employees that some tax is due as the reason for charging more or paying them less, you'd best be able on demand to show where every nickle thus collected was in fact remitted to the government(s) involved. Any attornies feel like a class action on behalf of telephone subscribers charged under what appears to be very capricious and arbitrary formulas? ------------------------------ From: jnovosel@cc.gatech.edu (Joe Novosel) Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 8 Feb 1998 03:17:44 GMT Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech Thomas J. Huot (huot@cray.com) wrote: > We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our caller > ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these calls are > hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm not sure if > they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. My question is > Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify > these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID > already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a > message informing the caller that our line does not accept unidentified > callers, and if they want to get through, they need to unblock their > number. If there is such a box, I would like to know about it. Has > anyone heard of such a thing? I built a solution using the following: *486 system running Linux (does other things besides this so I didn't have to buy more hardware) *Cheap 14.4 modem that receives Caller ID *Reveal "Voice mail for PC" "Dongle". This takes audio in/out from a sound card and will connect it to the phone line. Reveal has gone out-of-business now so some other solution would be needed. *Some software I wrote. I listen for caller-id and determine if the call is: 1. Out of Area - play appropriate message 2. Private - play appropriate message 3. On my list of blocked numbers - play appropriate message I got the messages from the Bell Labs text to speech synthesizer web page (can't remember the url). You can read my telemarketer blocker project writeup on my web page at: www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt2497b Joe Novosel CS2430-TA jnovosel@cc.gatech.edu This address may not be used for unsolicited email ***** Repeal the 16th amendment!! Support HR2001***** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 04:32:23 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books In TELECOM Digest, vol.18 no.24, Garrett Wollman wrote: > The 617/781 and 508/978 splits officially went mandatory today. By a > curious coincidence, my building's 1998 directories were delivered > today as well. A few comments on both ... You are to be commended. I never thought I would read a serious (and very well done) review of a telephone directory! I recall a number of years ago, some humorist wrote the following review of the Manhattan White Pages: "The author introduces what may be the most extensive cast of characters ever assembled in a single volume, but fails miserably in developing these characters. No sooner does the reader learn that Mr. Alvin A. Aaronson lives at 27750 Park Avenue, then the author abrubtly drops Mr. Aaronson and moves on to another protagonist..." :) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 06:53:03 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: FCC Surcharge and Complaints > My first reaction is, I take issue with the comments from MCI if the > part about how the connection charges is true. If I understand > correctly, the long-distance companies no longer have to pay the LEC's > a per-minute charge, instead they pay a charge based on the number of > lines. If MCI is passing on the per-line connection charges to their > customer, but not reducing per-minute rates, then I don't see how MCI > is doing anything other than increasing their revenue. > I would be interested to find out if anyone has had similar experience > of excessive charges, or any further insight on these charges. AT&T is also currently charging a $1.50/line "subscriber line surcharge" (or something to that effect, I don't have my bill in front of me). I don't know if they plan to lower their rates (they did mention that there was some kind of rate change coming but it didn't say what), but I will keep everyone posted as I find out more. Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #29 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 20 18:07:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA01911; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:07:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:07:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802202307.SAA01911@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #30 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Feb 98 18:07:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Digest (Richard Kenshalo) Are You Well? (Chuck Tyrrell) Pat? Are You OK? (Stan Schwartz) Did You Miss Me? (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:28:46 -0900 From: Richard Kenshalo Reply-To: rkenshalo@mta-telco.com Organization: MTA Subject: Telecom Digest Pat: Hope everything is ok. Haven't heard from the Digest lately, and trust that all is well with you. Richard M. Kenshalo Matanuska Telephone Association Corporate Planner 1740 S. Chugach Street MS CCP Palmer, Alaska 99645 rkenshalo@mta-telco.com 907-745-9575 FAX 907-746-9676 ------------------------------ From: Chuck Tyrrell Subject: Are You Well? Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:14:33 -0500 Pat, It has been quite some time since I have gotten any copies of the Digest. Have you been ill? I know that there is a bad flu going around and I hope that you haven't gotten it. Chuck Tyrrell 248 339 1566 ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Pat? Are You OK? Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:47:58 -0500 Pat, Just checking to see if everything is OK. We get concerned when we don't hear from you for an extended period! Regards, Stan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:15:00 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Did You Miss Me? An explanation is in order: The past ten days or so have been absolutely frantic for me, as a result of a system crash a week ago Monday, lots of lost files, and other hassles. It all began a week ago Monday, when about noon or so I turned on my new (well, three months old) laptop to discover Windows would not start. Booting up produced one or two different results. Most of the time, I was informed that 'Windows cannot run on less than 7.0'. Other times the disk drive would spin longer than usual and finally just drop me at a DOS prompt. At that point, attempting to start Windows95 by typing the DOS command 'win' would result in the message about it not running on anything less than 7.0. I spent most of the afternoon on the phone with various techs from Toshiba technical support (I have a Toshiba Satellite 220 CDS) and with techs from Comp-USA (from whom the machine was purchased in November, 1997.) Whatever one said would be contradicted by another. They had me do all sorts of specialized things such as 'erd', an emergency recovery program. One of them called into my computer remotely and looked at it from his end via the modem. Finally everyone decided I would need to reload Windows and start over ... Oh, you mean from the 29 diskettes I did not make ... ... The Toshiba rep at that point gave me some very bad advice, but I did not find out how bad it was until later. The rep said to go to where I bought the computer and buy a new copy of Windows. Okay, I went to the local Compu-USA store where there were two types of Windows on sale: the full package for $189 and 'Windows Upgrade' for a mere $89. Then the Comp-USA salesman had to add his own bad advice, saying there was no need to get the full Windows; that all I needed was the upgrade, since Windows had been there before. I paid the $89, came home and reloaded it. Imagine how thrilled I was to see it start up with my wallpaper, my desktop, my icons, etc. By now we are up to sometime Tuesday afternoon. But something was not right ... the sound card drivers were not working, the real player would not work, and a few other things looked strange, but I could not put my finger on what it was. Then the ugly nature of it all began to show through. I would get error messages quite often. Perhaps you have seen them: a little window pops up which says 'this program has performed an illegal operation and will be terminated.' The error message said a problem was present in 'kernel32' and that there was a 'page fault' somewhere or another, and it always offered a core dump if I wanted to read it or show it to someone. I never got just a single error message however; they would come five or six at a time. I would close the first 'illegal operation' window and a second one would pop up immediately. Actually it was just buried under the first one. I'd close it and there would be another; these things were always five or six deep before there were no more of them. Previously I could not talk to Microsoft about it because I was not their customer, but now I had an actual software package of theirs (Windows Upgrade) with a serial number on it and 90 days of free tech support included, so I called them and related the events of the past few days. By now it was late Tuesday sometime, and three or four reloads of Windows Upgrade later. The Microsoft tech listened sort of incredulously to the whole, long sordid tale and then gave his advice which I found really fascinating: You cannot do what you did ... those people at Toshiba and Comp-USA should **never** have told you to 'go buy another copy of Windows and install it' ... full package, upgrade or anything else. The reason is you have the OEM version, called 'OSR-2' installed on your machine, while what we in-house refer to as 'retail Windows' is a different animal totally. It is known as OSR-1. You need '2', not '1' ... you need the OEM version. I asked him where can I get '2'; I'll try over again with that. You can't get it. It isn't sold to the public. And I am afraid that whatever was wrong to start with -- had we heard about it in time and could have corrected it without you having to *completely format the hard disk* -- is now no longer the main issue. Now you need to go to a place which specializes in recoveries and tell them you want the machine restored to its original condition. You'll lose the entire hard disk in a reformat, but you will get back the computer with the icons, files and programs in place as they were when you got the machine. If there is anything else I can do to help you let me know. Have a nice day and thank you for calling Microsoft. Hmmm ... a call back to Comp-USA and a chat with the service technician supervisor, a guy named 'Ed' ... yes, he said, they could do what was requested, there was about a five day turnaround on repairs, and it would cost me $109 -- the standard rate for any sort of technical assistance on a flat rate -- but it could be done. I took the machine over that evening. Is this covered by warranty? I have the standard Toshiba one year warranty plus an extended warranty of three more years (after that) from Comp-USA. Uh, no ... software is not covered under the warranty. You are referring to Windows as software? I would think it is more correctly an operating system. But an operating system *is* software. Why, a few days ago did it just fall apart like a house made from playing cards? Just collapse and stop running? Might there be a hardware-related concern that caused this? Can't you bill Toshiba for it? I've already spent $89 getting a copy of Windows Upgrade based on bad advice from your salesman. Now you want another $109? What I can do is agree to take back the software -- which has been opened -- give you credit for it against the repair charges, and you will owe just $20 more. You can have the machine back in five or six days; don't call us, we'll call you. The payment has to be made in advance. I return home, leaving my precious little laptop in the 'computer hospital' only to discover that my one remaining method of connecting with the net -- an ancient old Qume terminal-- has now also gone to computer heaven; it won't light up or give any sounds of life at all. I call back to 'Ed' the next morning and present him with an offer: Could I meet you sometime soon, pay for a little 'overtime' and get the machine back tonight? By now it is mid-day Thursday. He says the fee for 'priority service' is an additional $70, and although he cannot do it that day, he can have 'someone' work on it Friday morning ... come in late Friday and pick it up. We will call you. Friday about 6:00 pm the phone rings. A technician named 'Moses' now has the laptop on his bench; he says he just got it a few minutes earlier and needs my system password to get in. I have to repeat my password several times, and spell it out for him twice. He does not seem to understand the difference between a hyphen and an underscore. I am starting to get nervous again. He tells me to come over about 9 pm 'but get here before the store closes' and pick it up. I go in the store at 8:45 pm and Moses comes out to the front counter. His story was he is not quite finished and to come back in the morning ... I ask if I can wait but he says the store closes at 9 pm and no customers are allowed to be around after that time. I am in the store the next morning when it opens. Someone brings the laptop to me -- after spending about ten minutes looking all over the back room for it, while I get more nervous -- and sits it on the counter saying look it over; make sure it works. Works?? Works??? It had some bastardized thing in it which probably was some form of Windows with a total of *four* icons on the desktop, one being 'My Computer', another being 'Network Neighborhood', a third being 'Recycle Bin' and last, but not least -- how could you have a computer without it -- 'Microsoft Network Signup'. I have heard it stated that one could take a laptop computer, smash it into a hundred pieces, shovel all the pieces into a barrel, start a fire in the barrel, and when later you went sifting through the ashes in the barrel there near the bottom glowing in the darkness of the soot and ashes would be the Microsoft icon ... ... it just won't go away! I stood there having a terrible fit; the store manager and the general manager came to talk to me. I refused to take possession of the machine and told them 'once again, all I want is to have the macine restored to the way it came out of the store ... pretend like you are selling me a new computer; load it with OEM Windows, the accessories, etc. They assured me it would be handled correctly this time, and that I could go home, return (at this point for the sixth time in a single week) at 5:00 pm, see them personally and pick it up. 5:00 pm comes and I go to the store again. Moses comes out this time -- after some badgering by me insisting to talk to someone besides the tech department clerk at the front counter -- and he tell me as follows: I cannot do a recovery on a Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS. I do not have the recovery disk for that unit. I did however 'find a copy' of Windows around here 'someplace' and loaded it completely. I asked why, as a dealer of Toshiba, they did not have the recovery disk. He said they did have the recovery disk for the 225-CDS, but not the 220-CDS. Anyway, you did not buy this here. Comp-USA retail stores sell the 225-CDS; the 220 was a sort of specialized thing that Compu-USA used to sell, but through a special program and not in the retail stores. Toshiba made the 220 as a 'business machine' instead of a personal computer; they made a deal with Comp-USA and a couple other places to sell it through third parties. Furthermore, the machines we sell here come already loaded from Toshiba; we do not add any software to them. A payphone was nearby and I immediately called the 24 hour Toshiba tech support number and related all this. Tell those fools to recover with the 225 disk, for gosh sakes! There is not one iota of difference between the 220 and the 225 that matters where this is concerned. Same software completely. Yes, the 220 was for a specific promotion, I won't go into the minor differences. I went back to Moses and asked him -- pleaded with him -- use the 225-CDS recovery disk. I will go out for my dinner, try to calm down, and be back in a couple hours. He would not be moved. He would not do it; and said the manager could not make him do it either. I picked up the machine and walked out. The manager was standing there and said to me they would write off the 'difference I still owed' on the tech work. Sunday I was sort of ill with a case of flu and fever. I felt really very bummed out about it. Monday I got a call about 9:00 am -- meaning a mere 7:00 am in Redmond, Washington -- from a man who identified himself as a 'Microsoft employee' and he said: Oh, Mr. Townson ... we heard you were having trouble with your computer, is that right? Troubles, I asked? Nobody knows the troubles I've seen ... nobody knows but Jesus, as the old spiritual goes ... Well I am going to help you get it fixed if you will allow me to do so. Be my guest. What else could go wrong at this point? Those terrible techs! Probably all just got hired recently and should be assigned to more simple tasks. I have a package of stuff for you to download; do you want to do it today? Oh sure, I have time to kill. The last time I visited the Microsoft web site and looked at one simple download it said the estimated time to download it was five hours and ten minutes, but net speeds being what they are, I suppose I could reasonably expect to double that. Oh no, I'll give you a telephone number. Just dial in on that number and use the password I will give you. The number goes direct to a workstation near me; it will take some time but you can call the 800-number version if you wish; then call me back on a different line, or I will call you. I was on the line to that computer in Redmond for about three hours; but a delightful basket of goodies came my way as a result. By late Monday night, I had Windows restored and running .... almost. There was still no audio; I still could not get a full screen, and things were still sort of flaky looking, but at least no more 'illegal operation' messages. The only thing this guy did not replace for me was sndrec32.exe ... the 'Sound Recorder' and the volume control knob which appears on the screen when you press the speaker icon on the task bar. Does anyone have a copy of sndrec32.exe they wish to send me? The Microsoft guy said 'what few problems remain' would go away when Toshiba gave me the necessary instructions for reloading some Toshiba-specific drivers and details on the sound card and video, etc. Tuesday -- now a week and a day following the incident of Black Monday as I shall call it -- Toshiba patiently sat on the phone with me for almost an hour and knitted everything back together, i.e. sound, and video drivers, a couple of things in the BIOS they had me set to a different status, etc. Tuesday about noon, eight days into this saga, things are looking good. I might actually get back on line later today. Oh yeah? ... Just fanciful thinking on my part. Tuesday afternoon a call from my friend at the bus station; a problem with the phones there that rendered them all out of order; could I come and look at it. Of course I could, and that ran from Tuesday afternoon into Wednesday resulting in having an Ameritech guy out to swap some pairs in the cable which had gone sour. The usual arguments: are you sure it is not in your modem/fax/credit card machine, etc? After another terrible fit by myself -- my own mental condition was getting pretty unstable at this point -- the Ameritech guy shows up, decides a 'cable guy' has to come out, gets the place up and running sort of half-assed, and splits. Wednesday they did come out bright and early and get new cable pulled. Now we are up to Wednesday night ... now nine days without a chance to work on the Digest (I suppose I could have stayed awake for 48 hours running and done *something* ). Comes very early Thursday morning, I wake up bright and early, detirmined to get on line and get some work done here. A little box comes via Federal Express quite early. In the box, a tiny circuit board with four chips on it entitled 16 Megs of RAM. The Federal Express indicia said it came from Redmond, Washington and the sender, who asked to be nameless included a note which said 'when you dialed in Monday and I was looking over your computer at this end, I noticed there was just 16 M in there; you know you are not doing Windows any favor by running with that little. Add this and get yourself 32 total. I found it laying around here ... this should make things run much, much faster if Windows does not have to constantly swap memory in and out using the hard drive to store stuff. Downloads will be faster, Real Player will not sputter and stall so much (since it will buffer more to start with) and things should just work better in all respects. Oh, one last bit of advice, Mr. Townson: don't f--- up putting this in, or you will have a lot more grief than Windows could ever cause.' This was followed by a couple smileys. I put in the extra memory, and for once in a couple weeks, things went right. When I booted up, there it was in the memory check which occurs each time; a full 32 instead of the 16 I had worked with for the two or three months I had this machine. At least it seemed that way ... Thursday evening a few hours to spare, let's get busy with the Digest mail. About two thousand pieces of mail waiting :( and over half of it was spam, sometimes the same spam from the same person(s) three, four or five times. I spent a couple hours just 'plowing' through it deleting wholesale everything that looked like spam. Gosh, this connection is slowing down a lot I thought ... must be awfully heavy traffic on Compuserve tonight. Click, the modem shuts off. Repeated redial attempts fail. I decide to reboot and the result is the computer is unable to find a modem at all! 'You have to install a modem to use dialup networking' chants Windows. Ah, I knew it was too good to be true. Several attempts to reconfigure it failed. Friday morning I am on the phone to Toshiba again (again?, yes again) and they walk through the entire process of re-establishing the ports, the modem, and the various drivers involved. 'All well now' says the man. Attempting once again to dial out, Dial Up Networking tells me 'another applica- tion is using the telephony device. Try later when it is finished.' Even after re-booting the same response comes back. I am back on the phone to Toshiba absolutely steaming. Toshiba insists it must be the version of Windows now installed. A suggestion is made once again that I go to an authorized service center and have a complete recovery, 'this time using only the proper recovery disk.' I hang up the phone, or more correctly slam the receiver. I think they are tired of hearing from me; as tired as I am of calling them. A call back to Remond to Nameless. His response was 'such crocks they hand out over the tech phone lines at those places ... did you get the extra memory?' I told him I had. Okay he says, do as follows: Shut off the computer. Take the modem out of the slot on the side. Turn the computer back on without the modem card. I did these things. Call Windows' attention to the lack of any modem by deliberatly using Dialup Networking to 'make a call'. I can't find a modem!, screamed Windows. Now shut off the computer, and reinstall the card. Turn the computer back on. As the computer booted up still again, this time a small window popped up saying a new piece of hardware had been found, a 28.8 fax/modem card, can you believe that? ... and Windows graciously said it would be installed for me with drivers, etc. It worked, and I am on line now, although the speed is not that great. But, it is not plodding along, repeatedly disconnecting and making claims about other 'another application using the device.' The Microsoft guy urged me again to not mention his name on the newsgroup. I promised him I would not, but I also assured him if I keep on having problems with this I will damn them all to hell on the newsgroup. Now Friday, almost two weeks after it began, I *seem* to be back to normal. Of course I felt that way after I ignorantly installed the Windows Upgrade several days ago. This time though, I feel it is very very close to being totally restored. If you do not hear from me for a few days, you'll know once again I guessed wrong. The Microsoft guy said whatever I did, I should IMMEDIATLY find some way to back up everything. In particular, all of Windows and the registry. I have no method of doing that short of using about a hundred diskettes. Maybe at least I will back up \windows\system and keep it safe. Also, I no longer have any backup method of getting on the net, which should be obvious by my absence the past several days. My one and only still working terminal finally also gave out. If anyone has a spare terminal (I have modems, cables, etc) they don't need and would like to donate, please let me know. Something like an old Wyse, or Hewlitt Packard or Qume would be ideal. If anyone has an old used 486 with a LARGE hard drive (this laptop has 1.3 gigs of space) large enough to hold the contents of this machine, I would appreciate it also and will pay some token sum for it if requested. Then I will back this all up on the hard drive of the other machine. Anyway, thats where I have been for a couple weeks. Sorry about that. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #30 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 26 21:47:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA01271; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:47:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:47:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802270247.VAA01271@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #31 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Feb 98 20:47:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Requires 7.0 or Above Error (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Robert Lindh) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Name Withheld by Request) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Jack Daniel) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Michael P. Deignan) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Lee Winson) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Name Withheld by Request) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Ryan Tucker) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Dave Close) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Andrew Crawford) Windows Suggestions For Pat (Wulf Losee) Glad You're Back (Dave Stott) Your Recent Winderz Problems (John Herrbach) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Peter Gross) Re: Did You Miss Me? (Robert L. McMillin) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:47:56 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Requires 7.0 or Above Error Hi Pat... One thing that may not have been mentioned to you is that Windows 95 is considered DOS 7.0. If the io.sys, msdos.sys and command.com files are replaced for some reason with an earlier version of DOS, then Windows 95 will not run (claiming it needs 7.0 or above). Is there a possibility that anything you ran prior to your system going kablooie may have replaced those critical system files? Or worse, is there a virus on your system that may have damaged them? I would recommend double-checking both, as soon as possible. That way --hopefully! -- your system won't puke. Finally, *never* trust large chain-store techs. Small, independent computer stores are your best bet, especially if they have been in business a long time. If you're small, you won't last long if you don't treat your customers right. ttyl... ------------------------------ From: robert.lindh@huddinge.mail.telia.com (Robert Lindh) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:50:20 GMT Mr Townson, I think the suggestion by Mr Jim Gorman, below, is a good idea. My (IBM Aptiva) PC was delivered with a CD-ROM like the one he describes, and I have used it several times to restore the contents of the hard disk to exactly the state it had when I bought the PC. The only difference, compared to what he is describing, is that the floppy was not included with my computer, it needed to be created by a built-in tool, stored on my PC's hard disk. The floppy is called an "emergency recovery" floppy, whose purpose is to load enough of MS-DOS, to make it possible to format the hard disk, and then fill the hard disk with its proper (initial) contents, from the CD-ROM. The disadvantage with this emergency recovery is that all changes to the contents of the hard disk, made after the purchase of the PC, is lost. This unfortunately consist of all software you have added, and all data files you have changed or added on the hard disk. A free tool, that can be used for backup of your data files, are called "PKZIP for Windows" It can be downloaded from "http://www.pkzip.com". When I use it for backup of my data files, I tell it to make a compressed copy of all CHANGED files, compared to the last backup event, towards my ZIP-drive. It can also work towards a set of ZIP-disks, or towards a set of floppy disks, if the backup file does not fit into one ZIP-disk or one one floppy. I do not think it can work towards magnetic tape. Please note that this free tool can not make a successful backup of the operating system, to be used to restore everything on the hard disk, to the state the hard disk had, when the backup was made. It can only be used for the more simple task of restoring your data files, in a PC that is working normally. What I do, when the software on my hard disk is destroyed, is: 1. Restore the PC to original state by the emergency recovery floppy, and the CD-ROM. 2. Install the software I have bought, from their own CD-ROMs, or floppy disks, according to their own installation instructions. Among these are "PKZIP for Windows 3.50", which fit into one floppy disk. 3. Use "PKZIP for Windows" to restore my data files, from the backup files containing the gradual changes in my data files, starting with the oldest backup file, and restoring from younger and younger backup files, until I have restored from the youngest backup file. (This is because I save only the changed files, so in order to restore my hard disk, I need to apply all changes, one after another.) Sincerly, Robert Lindh robert.lindh@huddinge.mail.telia.com PS. I do not work with PCs as my profession. I only use PCs at work and in my home. (My work environment is the OS of the AXE central office, from Ericsson.) DS. ------------------------------ From: withheldonrequest@telecom-digest.org (Name Withheld) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:01:47 GMT On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:15:43 EST, in comp.dcom.telecom you wrote: > remotely and looked at it from his end via the modem. Finally everyone > decided I would need to reload Windows and start over ... > > Oh, you mean from the 29 diskettes I did not make ... ... Did they not provide you Windows CDs (if the machine has a CD-ROM drive) or floppies? Were the Win95 install files preinstalled on the machine's hard drive? > not find out how bad it was until later. The rep said to go to where > I bought the computer and buy a new copy of Windows. Okay, I went to NO NO NO. This shouldn't have happened. Toshiba should have SENT YOU A COPY OF WINDOWS. > is known as OSR-1. You need '2', not '1' ... you need the > OEM version. > I asked him where can I get '2'; I'll try over again with that. > You can't get it. It isn't sold to the public. And I am=20 The question remains: Why didn't Toshiba volunteer to send you disks or a CD? Since OSR2 is only provided with new machines or certain critical components (motherboard etc.), and not available as a retail "upgrade" version, it should have been provided to you by Toshiba! It's VERY likely that there is specific support for your machine included in OSR2 and not the retail version. (There are other specific machines that required OEM versions of the original Win95, IIRC.) I just bought another PC (a P166-MMX desktop from HiQ Computers) and got a CD of OSR2 -- in case I need to reinstall Windows -- in the documentation pack. This is virtually standard practice. Some makers who make "mass-market" PCs, such as Compaq, put an image of the Win95 install files on the hard drive and expect the buyer to copy the files to floppies -- something I don't approve of. > playing cards? Just collapse and stop running? Might there be a > hardware-related concern that caused this? Can't you bill Toshiba It's possible that this is the case. > What I can do is agree to take back the software -- which has > been opened -- give you credit for it against the repair At least they did this. Some stores wouldn't refund the price of opened software. > I cannot do a recovery on a Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS. > I do not have the recovery disk for that unit. I did All they need is a generic copy of OSR2. Since CompUSA sells PCs, they should have had one. (But then again, this IS CompUSA we're talking about. They're the object of numerous flames in misc.consumers and various Web sites...) > A payphone was nearby and I immediately called the 24 hour ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A COCOT, probably. The CompUSA stores around here ALL have COCOTs... :( > almost. There was still no audio; I still could not get a full screen, > and things were still sort of flaky looking, but at least no more > 'illegal operation' messages. The only thing this guy did not replace > for me was sndrec32.exe ... the 'Sound Recorder' and the volume > control knob which appears on the screen when you press the speaker > icon on the task bar. Does anyone have a copy of sndrec32.exe they Do RealPlayer or other audio apps work? If they don't, there is no sense in trying to get a copy of sndrec32. This should've been fixed. > Now shut off the computer, and reinstall the card. > Turn the computer back on. > As the computer booted up still again, this time a small window popped > up saying a new piece of hardware had been found, a 28.8 fax/modem Plug and Play worked for once... :) To say the least: Both CompUSA, and (more importantly Toshiba) screwed up big-time. Guess who won't be buying a Toshiba anytime soon, or going to CompUSA (I have gone there twice in the past week getting supplies for the new PC, and both times had to go to Micro Center or even Office Depot to find what I needed...)... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above was sent by someone who asked for it to not be attributed to his name in the Digest; but he is a regular here. All the sound works fine now; really good in fact. Last night I found a *marvelous* midi file of the entire 1812 Overture and another site with a huge collection of classical organ music in midi files. Toshiba got the sound up and running for me the day after the Microsoft guy did his thing. The Satellite 220-CDS of Toshiba is a bit of an orphan I guess. It was manufactured for some special promotion(?) or other corporate deal with some company, Ameritech perhaps. It reminds me a bit of the old 'Black Apples' put out by Apple in the late 1970's. They were nothing more or less than an Apple ][ +, and even included the same DOS and 'Applesoft Basic' that Apple used on all their machines in those days. 'Applesoft Basic' was really Microsoft Basic sold in large quantities to Apple for their machines, much like OEM Windows is sold in large quantities today, already pre-loaded, etc. But the 'Black Apples' were in a black or very dark grey case as opposed to the light cream-colored cases Apple ordinarily used, and instead of the little metal plate on the cover with the Apple logo, the black apples had a logo saying 'Bell and Howell'. Even the external disk drive cases were the same black/dark grey color. The software for one was identical to the other although it was alleged there were certain minor, very obscure differ- ences in the OS, or operating system. If you tried to get tech help on it from Apple, they'd refuse to help and say 'go to Bell and Howell about it ...' Bell and Howell had purchased a few thousand of these things from Apple at the insistence of their (then) company president Chuck Percy (later a senator in Illinois) and as for the leftovers when B&H decided to use other stuff? Well .. they were 'disposed of' ... via various third parties, etc. That *appears* to be the case with the Satellite 220-CDS. When I got it, it came with a CD Rom inviting me to sign up with an IPS known as ameritech.net ... gee why does that name 'ameritech' sound so familiar? :) Totally 'reconditioned' (although it never appears to have been used at all before I got it), it came with a tag on the bottom noting 'Compu-USA Equipment ID #xxxxx', and what I was able to glean from Moses, the repair tech there was that Comp-USA had been in on the deal, but it was unclear exactly *how* they were involved. He, and the store manager insisted no such model was ever on sale in the retail stores, although they had heard that 'corporate has cut a couple deals in the past with Toshiba on behalf of large customers with whom both Toshiba and Comp-USA had mutual dealings.' Hmmm ... A Toshiba supervisor insisted to me that 'there is no recovery disk devoted to the 220-CDS, and futhermore, no disk of Windows was included in the sale. ... either you back it up or when you lose it you don't have it any more ...' She noted that, 'what you should have recieved and apparently did receive was a CD-Rom of the Toshoba drivers and other utilities, a smaller diskette to use to boot the computer if necessary, a very small reference book on Windows with the OEM certification seal on it, and a larger reference book about the Toshiba machine itself. I told her the CD-Rom was conspic- ous in its lack of ANY of the Windows' drivers or software. That's right, she said, no Windows backup. None ... nada ... YOU take charge of that part of it. I told her I 'had been told' the 225 recovery disk would work, and her response was 'maybe so, but that's beside the point ...' She would not actually come out and say the 220 was a special job off their bench, but in her words, 'the 225 is intended as a personal/home-use laptop, while the 220 is a 'business machine'. In other words, no difference, just that if I had lots of money I suppose I could order a couple thousand of the 225's and tell them to use a glow-in-the-dark purple case and refer to them as the 'Townson Telecom Professional Computer' or similar in markings on the cover. And would you mind giving me about X percent off the price if we don't bother with backup stuff from Windows? At least that is my impression as of now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Daniel Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:21:37 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: JackDaniel@RFSolutions.com Welcome back, Pat. And thanks for your tale of windows VS humans. I have been so browbeaten by countless 'experts' that I had almost started believing I was the only person that was 'too stupid' to operate Windows '95 or NT. I have been attempting to stabilize Windows 95 and NT for over 2 years now and have simply given up and accept the fact that I can expect a crash or lock-up at any time and in any program. In the four hours the machine has been on today I have only experienced three crashes, but two were "my fault" because I attempted to use Explorer instead of Netscape to read some mail that had a "MS proprietary" file format attached. The other one was just a routine WKW (who knows why) problem that resulted in just the left button of the mouse dying in the middle of typing a MS Word letter. I no longer hesitate to turn off all power to the machine to do hard re-boot. That is often the only option left to me. I have also purchased tons of software (I stubbornly, and perhaps stupidly, refuse to bootleg)to 'solve' my Windows problems. I have several upgrades as well as a complete set of NT and matching MS programs (they are not always compatible between '95 and NT) as well. I accept the fact that Windows will decide for itself what hardware and software will operate every time I start the machine. I dare not intervene for fear for having to reformat my hard drive and reload the operating system, although that's only happened 5 times in 26 months. The best investment you can make is a very high capacity back-up system. To have any sleep at all, I purchased a Jaz drive with 1 GB disc cartridges. Although the software doesn't integrate into Win '95 too well, I have found a way to make back-ups of my complete 4 GB hard drive. Every week end now, I spend about 4 hours backing up and cleaning up the hard drives. Computing sure has enriched my lifestyle. I also have a Toshiba satellite and believe it or not, I actually have an Toshiba OEM version of Win '95 for it!!! It was an 'upgrade' provided by Toshiba because mine came with Win 3.1 installed. I have nit installed Win '95 and the machine works absolutely flawlessly! The old 485 Win 3.1 machine that was scheduled to be replaced by the newer Pentium 200 MHz Win '95 machine remains in the office as a backup when something has to be done in a rush and time doesn't permit the luxury of system crash recovery on the new machine. This is longer than I intended, but, Again, THANKS! I am NOT alone in the universe. Jack Daniel ------------------------------ From: kh6hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.NO-SPAM (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: 26 Feb 1998 21:43:17 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > and with techs from Comp-USA ... (tale of woe deleted) Gosh. Almost anyone I know in the computer industry could have told you that taking your computer to CompUSA for a "tech" to work on it means utter destruction. The "techs", salesreps, and even managers at CompUSA are a bunch of clueless morons. And, that is being considerate. I swear they hire the rejects from the McDonalds across the street in my town. Two years ago I purchased two identical Pentium systems from them. After one year, one system fried. No video, so I swapped the video card with the other system, same result. I brought the system back, told them I had diagnosed the problem (bad motherboard), and when the "tech" (a 15-year old 'Johnnie') told me "oh, you opened the case? That voids the warrantee." I had to speak to the management to straighten the problem out. They "fixed" the machine, it worked for another month, and the same problem occurred. At that point I gave up. A year ago I went in and saw a great deal on a Toshiba T425CDT. $1k under mail order. I grabbed it. Got it home, used it for a few weeks, and then a friend stopped over and said "That's an active matrix? It don't look like it." Sure, enough, despite the fact that the case said T425CDT, and the screen said 425CDT, the screen was actually a dual- scan passive. Only after threat of lawsuit and immediate visit to the state attorney's office did the manager agree to sell me a T435CDT for "only" $600 more. Right now, a significant number of complaints have been filed with our state attorney general's consumer affairs division regarding CompUSA's advertising practices. Seems over the past year they have been advertising "low cost" items (such as hard drives) which, when you arrive at the store 10 minutes after opening the day the flyer arrives in your mail, they are mysteriously "sold out". No rainchecks, no substitutions, but oh, we have this nice hard disk (.3GB larger) for only $100 more than that other drive ... MD Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns. If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mention the fifteen year old 'tech' spouting the company line about 'voiding the warranty'; I have run into a few of those little snot-noses myself and some of them sure can be obnoxious. At Radio Shack one day I made a comment to a salesman about Windows and some program included with it on the computer they were selling at the time. I then walked over to another area, and picked up a cable to connect a printer to a 'Black Box' buffering unit. This little kid who had overheard my original comm- ents saw me pick up that particular cable and right away he spoke up saying, 'oh that will not work with what you have'. I just looked at him and said (admittedly crudely, I was in a lousy mood that day anyway) 'how the f--- would YOU know what I have and don't have? Better to just shut the f--- up when you don't know what you are talking about.' Oh, he looked so crushed. I hope I ruined his day. I half expected him any minute to run off calling 'Mommeeeee ... that bad man cussed at me ... ' in which case I would have had an opportun- ity to give his mother a piece of my mind also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: 26 Feb 1998 17:57:38 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS We were concerned you may have been ill. Glad you're health is ok. Interesting report on the PC problems. Last year I replaced my trusty 286 running DOS 3.3 with a Pentium running Win95 so I could access graphics on the Web. (My ISP is a low cost one, providing text-only access.) I don't have a clue how Win95 works, or what my machine is doing half the time. The new modem sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, and I have to use my old one (I had a 14.4, but wanted the 28.8 for better speed.) So much of it is automatic or hidden behind "properties" settings. Some settings are via the "options" menu, others via a "properties" menu, and still others from external menus. I lost sound altogether (including simple beeps) because the volume control on the taskbar was turned off, which I accidently discovered. For a lot of individual people, I really wonder if computers are not just expensive toys, as opposed to true productivity saving devices for the home. For home use, do we really need the fancyness of Works for Windows? My MSDOS version of Works was quite powerful and more than adequate for the occassional letter to Visa questioning a bill. I've found for such letters it's actually faster for me to use a manual typewriter, no fuss, no muss. Sometimes I wish we were still using punched cards and IBM 1401 computers. Anyway, glad you're back! Lee. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You ask if 'computers are expensive toys for many people' and the answer to that from me would be a resounding YES. There is nothing I do in my daily routine which *needs* to be done with a computer. I do most arithmetic calculations in my head, and for how many ever years when I had something to write I used (first) a manual typewriter and the (in later years) an IBM Selectric with different 'type balls' or fonts depending on what I was working on. Admittedly a computer makes it easier to look up details quickly. As for this Digest, 99.95 percent of the world has never heard of it -- or me, for that matter -- and I can't imagine the world would be any different if it was not around. A 'fun' thing to do, perhaps, but essential? -- hardly. My understanding is that a huge majority of the people 'getting into' personal computers and the net these days are here to look at fancy web pages, possibly do a little cyber-shopping as part of it, spend some time interacting in chat and newsgroups, and that is about it. And the people who have some difficulty interacting with others in society on a face to face basis can do so 'safely' behind a computer keyboard. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Withheld on Request Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:08:45 EST Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? [not for publication, unless you remove my name. xxxx] You've probably received a billion "me too" responses. Well, me too. I use an IBM Thinkpad 760ED notebook for work. Every few weeks, Windows 95 will lock up the machine, and nothing short of hitting the power switch will bring the machine back. Most of the time this happens, the sound drivers become corrupt. Occasionally, the network stack becomes corrupt. There's no warning, no clear indicator afterward, and the only way to fix things is to re-install the drivers. I have used many operating systems, and I have never seen any so prone to both lock-up and *undetectable* driver corruption as Windows. Windows is fine while it works, but when it crashes, it can take me days to track down the corruption and fix it. Toshiba might sell or give you a `recovery' CD. I strongly recommend that every Windows 95 user have one. And bring it with you if you travel. The right solution, of course, is to switch operating systems. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:06:26 -0600 From: Ryan Tucker Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199802wk1@katan.ttgcitn.com In comp.dcom.telecom, you wrote: > The Microsoft guy said whatever I did, I should IMMEDIATLY find some > way to back up everything. In particular, all of Windows and the > registry. I have no method of doing that short of using about a > hundred diskettes. Maybe at least I will back up \windows\system and > keep it safe. A site I found lately: http://www.atbackup.com/ I haven't tried it yet (my win95 machine doesn't have a modem, and the nearest spare modem is a 2400bps modem -- ehh, no, backing up 12gb nightly will NOT happen with a 2400bps modem), but it looks promising. Hey, it's better than nothing. I hope. -rt (who, being in ISP tech support, knows all too well how utterly, totally, and disgustingly clueless OEM tech support can be... no, we do NOT send out dialup networking on our install CD!!!) Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ The next line may just show what CD I'm listening to. Ambience: Depeche Mode / Some Great Reward: - [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I took a look at www.atbackup.com based on your mention of it, and wound up getting snookered into downloading their free software which took me a little over an hour only to unpack it and discover it would not run. :( It seems the little 'save your password' bug in Dial Up Networking keeps their backup software from correctly working. You cannot save your password in Dial Up Networking unless you also have a Windows username and password, but the backup software relies on it being able to make a phone call out from your machine in the middle of the night (typically) to their facility. After spending an hour downloading their software, another hour or so trying to get it to run, and several minutes on the phone with *their* tech, I found out from their tech that 'a corrective patch is available for the cannot save password problem from the Microsoft web page.' So off I go to the MS web site, fighting the evening hours rush traffic on the net and comb through several screens of miscellaneous drivers all obscurely named, various tech notes on all sorts of topics (when the MS web page was willing to respond, which was not all that often) and I found nothing except a 'service pack' which was alleged to correct the problem. But that 'service pack' had a warning on it saying 'WARNING DO NOT INSTALL THIS ON OSR-2/OEM WINDOWS MACHINES'. Being still a little gun-shy after the events of two weeks ago which just would not go away, I took them at their word and did not download it after having spent about an hour looking for it. A search using 'Infoseek' turned up a patch elsewhere that was supposed to do the job. I downloaded it, and promptly blew Dial Up Networking out of the water entirely. DUN had to be entirely reloaded, and Compuserve's techs helped me get the drivers and adapters installed once again. I immediatly went and erased every single thing I could find of the www.atbackup software. That's where I have been the past two days. Do you sense I am becoming a little bitter about all this? Someone is coming over here over the weekend with a backup device and several disks. I intend to copy the entire hard drive -- not just Windows -- in the hopes that if I ever have such an incident again I'll be able to almost immediatly put everything back in place, minus perhaps a few newly created files. But I cannot really see myself accumulating much more in the way of files on here. The Digest stuff is all stored at MIT, and this laptop has as many flashing pictures, sound effects, browsers and services (Compuserve, America OnLine, and -- how could you have a computer without it? -- the Microsoft Network) as I will ever need. Real Player Plus, Media Player, Sound Recorder, Net Show, Net Meeting, IRC .. you name it. Of course in 1981 I did not really understand why anything more than a 300 baud modem was needed either. Tonight I am going to restore GW Basic, an old DOS terminal and fax program I like a lot, and maybe one or two other small things. Then that is it. I happen to still like programming exercises to keep my brain cells from stagnating, and I happen to be very good using (B)eginner's (A)ll purpose (S)ymbolic (I)nstruction (C)ode. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: 26 Feb 1998 22:29:50 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Ah, the joys of "commercial quality", "supported" software! You KNOW you get better support on-line that those guys will ever give you. Why not bite the bullet and convert to something reliable? Like Linux. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 07:17:25 GMT From: Andrew Crawford Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > It all began a week ago Monday, when about noon or so I turned on my > new (well, three months old) laptop to discover Windows would not start. Pat, It's experiences like that which drive otherwise normal people to Linux. Andrew [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I admit I would rather have Linux/Unix on this laptop. Maybe someday I will. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:10:39 -0800 From: Wulf Losee Subject: Windows Suggestions For Pat Pat: Sorry to hear about you Windows problems. I must say I'm very impressed with the support you received from Microsoft, though! I've never gotten satisfactory support from them-- so I just don't bother to call anymore. It must be because you stood up for them a few issues ago ;-). Or maybe your fairy godmother was watching over you. If I might suggest two books: _Windows Annoyances_ by David A. Karp, pub. by O'Reilly & Associates. This is an excellent basic reference for Windows, and I can't recommend it more highly. _Windows 95 Secrets_ by Brian Livingston & Davis Straub. This is more comprehensive, but I've found it to be less useful. I suppose Karp is focused primarily on "fixes" for Windows, while Livingston & Straub's book is more of a general reference. Both are excellent, though. I would also suggest, that if you really are concerned about protecting your data, you might want to purchase a ZIP drive (which can store a 100MBytes per disk). I'm not fond of the ZIP, but it works. I understand a bunch of competitors are entering the market at the moment, so there may be alternatives to Iomega now. But a high-capacity storage device would probably cost less than what you paid your idiot repairmen. Personally, I was thinking of dumping Windows from my laptop as soon as I am able, and converting to Linux or Solaris. However, I have too much work done in Word, InfoSelect, and Visio, to convert easily to another OS. Anyone know of good Windows emulator for Linux? Best regards, Wulf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:48:03 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Glad You're Back Pat, Glad to see that you are back!! I missed the Digest and wondered where you were - glad you are OK. Sorry to hear about your computer troubles, too. In light of what you went through, consider this: you are a knowledgeable person with considerable literacy in computer topics and the workings of hardware and software, and yet you were unable to get your computer to work. Imagine someone with half your knowledge trying to load Netscape Navigator onto a machine where Internet Explorer is the default browser. Imagine the errors they will get! They will tell their friends what a hassle it is and their friends will worry too much to change browsers. IE takes over!!! Overblown? Sure, but not entirely without merit. Your own experience with Microsoft/Toshiba/CompUSA shows how perilous it is to screw around with Windows. Will the 'common man' risk adding a non-MS browser and risk hosing up the PC? Not on my watch, bubba. "If it comes with IE, IE's good enough for me" will be (is?) the rallying cry. So next time MS adds another application to the operating system, keep in mind that other applications made by other software houses will fall by the wayside. It is the nature of the software market. Once again, glad to see you're doing well! Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:10:14 -0500 From: John Herrbach Subject: Your Recent Winderz Problems Pat: Nothing really to add, just to say that I've seen this kind of situation too many times. I've had to get smarter than the repair techs so I'm not dependant on them any more. It seems (for me) to have been the only sure solution. I've been crash-free for a few years now. Good Luck and Take Care. John Herrbach, Lansing, Michigan Email: jaherrba@pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: pag@gpf.scg.boulder.co.us (Peter Gross) Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 07:02:14 GMT Organization: Nanosec, Inc. Reply-To: pag@gpf.scg.boulder.co.us On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:15:43 EST, in comp.dcom.telecom you wrote: [incredible tale of woe deleted] Pat, I can't believe an old-timer like you would trust anything critical to Win95! You should SERIOUSLY consider using linux, which is rock solid and excels at networking.... Take care, peter gross pag@scg.boulder.co.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:18:07 -0800 From: Robert L. McMillin Organization: Syseca, Inc. Subject: Re: Did You Miss Me? TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > An explanation is in order: [...] Pat, if you ever needed to know what motivates those of us who HATE Microsoft products and their sadly successful marketing strategies, it's because there are endless stories like yours out there. Need a computer that works, first time, every time? Buy a Mac... but the beancounters of the world, on observing that Macs (at least, used to) cost more initially, have forbidden them in the workplace. PCs, on the other hand, tend to work initially, but (a) special circumstances (multihomed networks, for instance) don't work reliably, and (b) fail far more often once installed, and in more frequently in ways that require enormous amounts of expensive hand holding. Try getting networking support from Gateway -- they'll tell you they don't answer networking questions. (The urban bigot in me says that's because anyone with a reasonable knowledge of networking wouldn't be working in friggin' South Dakota, but let us not be too hasty.) Need an operating system that doesn't accumulate viruses, doesn't require elaborate hacks in order to get the customer's job done, has usable security, scales to hell and gone, and doesn't have a thousand scars to accommodate obsolete 16-bit operating systems from the 1970's? Try Unix ... but Microsoft has already brainwashed your customers think NT will save them from high costs. This is perhaps true, but *only* if what they need comes off the shelf and requires very minimal (i.e., no or almost no) O/S tweaking. Every couple of months I see idiotic Microsoft brown-nosing in the trade rags telling me how "NT is ready for the big time" when MS's alleged TCP/IP stack STILL doesn't reply to broadcast pings. Basic stuff doesn't work, nor does Microsoft deign to fix it. Instead, they keep trying to crush everyone else in the software business... One final caveat: I'm well aware of the fact that with NT, Microsoft is actually doing something about true cross-platform source-code compatibility. This is something Unix has promised for years and never really delivered on. In fact, it's one area I think Microsoft is to be lauded for. But their implementations are frequently mediocre at best. 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: Unix is really what I would like to have in this computer, or something *so close* that it would emulate my account at MIT almost entirely. Then I could pick up my mail and work off-line on the Digest, and call back in to put it in the mail and the newsgroup. That's what I would like ... but I am told it is impossible to do it without partioning the drive, and that the flip side is Windows will not work if I *do* partition the drive. And also, I am not sure this laptop would be big enough to handle it all. I do have a 1.3 gig hard drive, 32M ram (up from the original 16), a floppy drive and a CDROM drive. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #31 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 26 23:24:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA07065; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:24:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:24:35 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802270424.XAA07065@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #32 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Feb 98 23:24:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Getting Back on Schedule (TELECOM Digest Editor) Telecom Update (Canada) #121, February 23, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Area Codes Boom Blasted (Tad Cook) SNET: The Baby That Wasn't a 'Baby Bell' (oldbear@arctos.com) Update on LincMad's Telecom Pages (Linc Madison) Last Laugh: Just a Normal Installation (oldbear@arctos.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:02:19 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Administrivia: Getting Back on Schedule A lot of the mail received over the past couple weeks will unfortunatly not be used in the Digest ... I am going to clear out several hundred waiting messages tonight and ask that we start over from the beginning. Also, list maintainence requests got pretty much out of control and I am asking that if you wrote me to be added or deleted from the mailing list over the past two/thre weeks -- or merely to change your address, etc -- that you write me again. I am pretty much writing off February as a lost month this year and perhaps with the support of all the fine readers here, March and the remainder of the year will be much better. Thanks very much for your support, advice and assistance over the past two weeks. I read every single piece of mail received about the system crash and thank each of you for writing, even if I did not send a personal reply. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:20:14 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #121, February 23, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 121: February 23, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Says Canada Violates World Telecom Pact ** Videotron Seeks Partner for Telecom Venture ** Teleglobe Wins Quebec Wireless Cable License ** BC Tel Gets OK for Wireless Local Service ** Canadian Numbering Administrator Sought ** Call-Net Budgets $100 Million for Local Service ** Fee Set for Satellite Capacity Requests ** CadVision Tries MetroNet ** ITU Agrees on Standard for 56K Modems ** Saskatchewan to Allow Local Resale April 1 ** Northern Telephone Proposes Rate Restructuring ** TMI Sells MSAT Capacity to U.S. Distributors ** McKenna to Chair AlphaNet Board ** Rogers Sells Stake in Cogeco ** Davidson to Head Cantel Ontario Region ** U.S. Wireless Broadband Auction Begins ** Payphone Association Meets ** ITAC, CCIB Propose E-Commerce Conference ** Angus Dortmans New Address ** Last Chance for Telemanagement Bonus Offer ============================================================ AT&T SAYS CANADA VIOLATES WORLD TELECOM PACT: AT&T Corp. says that Canada is violating the world telecom trade agreement by prohibiting the routing of international calls through the U.S. AT&T wants the U.S. government to complain to the World Trade Organization. (See Telecom Update #118) VIDEOTRON SEEKS PARTNER FOR TELECOM VENTURE: Groupe Videotron says it is looking for a partner to help launch local service in Quebec. The company denied rumors of a possible takeover by Telus. TELEGLOBE WINS QUEBEC WIRELESS CABLE LICENSE: The CRTC has given a broadcasting license to Look Tele, 50% owned by Teleglobe, for MDS (Wireless Cable) in Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa-Hull, and surrounding regions. (See Telecom Update #94) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/decision/1998/d9855_0.txt BC TEL GETS OK FOR WIRELESS LOCAL SERVICE: CRTC Telecom Order 98-144 approves BC Tel's proposal to use wireless technology to provide local service, following a successful six-month trial at Hot Springs Cove. (See Telecom Update #89) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98144_0.txt CANADIAN NUMBERING ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT: The corporation formed to choose a Canadian telephone numbering administrator will issue an RFP March 4. To receive a copy, write Jacques Sarrazin, 3414795 Canada Inc, Room 710, 160 Elgin St., Ottawa ON K1J 3G4 by March 2. CALL-NET BUDGETS $100 MILLION FOR LOCAL SERVICE: Call-Net, the owner of Sprint Canada, says it will spend $100 Million to launch local service in 1998. Call-Net reports a $2.7 Million loss for the fourth quarter and a $16.3 profit for all of 1997; 1997 revenues were up 29%. FEE SET FOR SATELLITE CAPACITY REQUESTS: CRTC Telecom Order 98-186 sets a refundable fee of $10,000 per RF channel for applicants for Telesat satellite capacity; Telesat must give the Commission its list of applicants every three months. In most other respects, the Order sustains existing rules. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98186_0.txt CADVISION TRIES METRONET: CadVision, a Calgary-based Internet Service Provider, is testing 100 local telephone lines provided by MetroNet to one of its dial-up modem pools. ITU AGREES ON STANDARD FOR 56K MODEMS: The International Telecommunication Union agreed February 6 on a standard, called V.90, for 56 Kbps modems. SASKATCHEWAN TO ALLOW LOCAL RESALE APRIL 1: The Saskatchewan government says that on April 1 it will permit resale of SaskTel's tariffed local services, including Centrex. NORTHERN TELEPHONE PROPOSES RATE RESTRUCTURING: Telecom Public Notice 98-2 asks for comment on Northern Telephone's proposal that its Northeast Ontario customers pay uniform local rates of $17.45 (residential) and $38.65 (business). The increases will pay for network modernization. Comments are due April 9. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p982_0.txt TMI SELLS MSAT CAPACITY TO U.S. DISTRIBUTORS: TMI Communications will sell satellite capacity to two California-based companies, Cue Network and Skysite Communications. (See Telecom Update #111) MCKENNA TO CHAIR ALPHANET BOARD: Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick, has been appointed Chairman of the Board of Toronto-based AlphaNet Telecom, which provides hotel fax and international voice-over-frame-relay services. ROGERS SELLS STAKE IN COGECO: Rogers Communications has sold its shares of Cogeco Cable for $27 Million. DAVIDSON TO HEAD CANTEL ONTARIO REGION: Rogers Cantel has appointed Dekkers Davidson as President of its Ontario region. U.S. WIRELESS BROADBAND AUCTION BEGINS: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has received high bids totaling US$192 Billion in the first round of bidding for licenses for LMDS, the wireless broadband service called LMCS in Canada. PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION MEETS: The founding meeting of the Canadian Independent Payphone Association will be held in Toronto, March 5. Contact Cameron Stuart at ipm@interlog.com ITAC, CCIB PROPOSE E-COMMERCE CONFERENCE: The Information Technology Association of Canada and the Canadian Council for International Business are proposing an international private sector conference on electronic commerce just before the OECD Ministerial Meeting in Ottawa in October. Those interested in such a meeting should contact Bill Munson by February 27 (bmunson@itac.ca). ANGUS DORTMANS NEW ADDRESS: Angus Dortmans' telecom management consulting practice now shares offices with Angus TeleManagement at 8 Old Kingston Rd., Ajax, ON L1T 2Z7. Tel: 905-686-5050 ext 300 (Toronto region) or 1-800-263-4415 ext 300; fax 905-686-2655. http://www.angustel.ca/angdort/ad.html LAST CHANCE FOR TELEMANAGEMENT BONUS OFFER: Until February 27, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive a free copy of "Front-Line Telecom Management in the 1990s," the newly published collection of columns by Henry Dortmans, President of Angus Dortmans. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Subject: Area Codes Boom Blasted Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:29:28 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Area codes boom blasted Critics say industry is causing artificial shortage of numbers Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON -- The costly and disruptive nationwide explosion of area codes has long been blamed on popular gadgets like fax machines and wireless phones, but critics are now charging that the shortage of telephone numbers is largely artificial. Regulators in nearly a half-dozen states are moving to impose moratoriums on new area codes out of concern that the burgeoning telephone industry is warehousing a vast reservoir of numbers instead of giving them to new customers. Poor management of telephone numbers, coupled with a refusal by the telephone industry to invest in new technology, is driving a need for more new area codes than are necessary, they say. The repeated changes of area codes have inconvenienced tens of millions of American consumers and saddled business with huge costs, triggering a growing consumer backlash that has caught federal regulators by surprise. "Telephone number assignment policies are broken and antiquated and reflect the old Ma Bell monopoly when there was only one phone company serving a geographic area," said John Hanger, a Pennsylvania public utilities commissioner. "The current system is lunacy. It has to end." The telephone industry denies it has created an artificial shortage, arguing that it does not have the technology to avoid creating new area codes. Critics say the technology exists, but the phone companies find it cheaper to create area codes than to invest in more sophisticated switching equipment. Each area code change costs companies as much as $40 million, according to one Pennsylvania estimate. Consumers are forced to reprogram their computers and home burglar alarms, as well as notify friends and relatives. Over the past three years, the number of U.S. area codes has surged by 67 percent. The impact is especially huge in California, which by the end of this year will have more than doubled the 10 area codes it had in 1991. Yet, of the 1.5 billion possible phone numbers created by the existing 193 area codes nationwide, about half a billion are not actively used, estimates Lee Selwyn, a Boston consultant. Selwyn said there are enough surplus telephone numbers to eliminate more than 60 area codes. The telephone industry acknowledges that there are surplus telephone numbers, but has not disclosed its own estimates. The recent increase in area codes, many experts agree, is more a case of the proliferation of new phone companies than the fast-growing communications technologies traditionally blamed for the increase. There are 55 million cellular phones in operation and 45 million pagers, besides the 174 million residential and business phone lines, according to industry estimates. (Each business line, however, can support up to 24 telephones.) Every carrier licensed by the government to offer service in a state is entitled to order phone numbers. And in most instances, since there is no penalty for overestimating demand, they load up. As a result, phone competition can easily send the arithmetic of phone numbers off the charts. The problem starts with the technology of existing switching equipment, which requires that allotments of telephone numbers are made in batches of 10,000. But in many cases phone or paging companies do not have customers for that many numbers. The Pennsylvania Utility Commission, for instance, found that some local phone companies holding blocks of 10,000 numbers had given fewer than a half-dozen of those numbers to subscribers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:11:37 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: SNET: The Baby That Wasn't a 'Baby Bell' Pat: This article has been sitting on my desk for about a month. I had meant to send it along to the Digest earlier. {The Boston Globe} Business Section Wednesday, January 21, 1998 Page D1 Back to the Future: SNET Still Dominates Despite efforts to open market, competitors say Baby Bell still controls 99% of local phone lines by Joann Muller, Globe Staff For a glimpse into the future of telecommunications, one need look no further than neighboring Connecticut, which had a two-year jump on the rest of the nation in opening up its local phone markets to competition. The combination of a progressive regulatory environment and the unique independence of its dominant phone company, Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. ("SNET"), has made Connecticut a telecommunications pioneer and given it an image as one of the easiest places for newcomers to set up shop. Connecticut's Legislature was the first in the nation to open its market to local phone competition. That happened in 1994 -- two years before Congress passed a sweeping federal telecommunications law. Since then, more than 50 companies have applied to the state's Department of Public Utility Control for permission to offer local phone service. So far, 36 applications have been approved, although not all of those companies are actually selling phone service yet. But despite the flood of new competitors, SNET still controls 99 percent of the local phone lines in the state, prompting many rivals to complain that Connecticut's procompetitive image is overrated. "It all looks good on paper," said AT&T Corp. spokeswoman Susan Ramsey. "Yes, regulators in Connecticut were a step ahead of the nation, but the reality is, there's no more local competition here than anywhere else." AT&T, in fact, has stopped marketing its local phone service in Connecticut (and several other states), blaming SNET and other competitors for sabotaging the quality of its service. Several things are on the horizon that could jump-start phone competition in Connecticut, but legal challenges and technical problems have delayed those initiatives. Last summer, Connecticut's Department of Public Utility Control ordered what would be the nation's first statewide ballot for local telephone service. Every household and business in the state will be asked to choose a local carrier. If consumers don't choose, they will have a carrier selected for them. Industry analyst Anna-Maria Kovacs of Janney, Montgomery Scott Inc., a Philadelphia investment firm, expects SNET will lose about 10 percent of its 2.2 million local phone customers because of the balloting process. But the balloting, which was supposed to begin in March, has been postponed until early 1999 because of concerns that SNET doesn't yet have the technical systems in place to switch such a large volume of customers off its network and onto its rivals' networks. The statewide ballot is the DPUC's effort to provide a level playing field following its approval of SNET's plan to split into two entities -- a retail arm that will sell phone service to consumers, and a wholesale arm that will sell access to SNET's network. SNET, which has agreed to be purchased by SBC Communications Inc. of Texas, says the restructuring would give it more flexibility because only the wholesale arm would be subject to state pricing restrictions. The retail arm would be free to sell phone services at any price it sees fit. But AT&T and MCI Communications Corp. have sued state regulators in federal court in Hartford, saying the restructuring plan illegally frees SNET from government oversight. A decision on that case is expected any day. In their eyes, SNET is really the only company that has thrived under Connecticut's progressive telecom laws. In the three years since SNET was allowed to begin selling long-distance service in Connecticut, the New Haven-based phone company has quickly captured 40 percent of the long-distance market. With its local and long-distance phone offerings, plus a growing presence in the cable TV, Internet, and wireless businesses, SNET has become the envy of the industry. "They are the model that all the Baby Bells want to be when they grow up," said Paul Kouroupas, vice president of regulatory and external affairs at Teleport Communications Group, which is being acquired by AT&T. The reason for SNET's success can be traced back to the company's unusual heritage. Founded in 1882, SNET has always been an independent company, although it was partially owned by the one-time monopoly AT&T. When the government-sanctioned breakup of "Ma Bell" occurred in 1984 -- creating a new generation of regional "Baby Bells" -- SNET remained independent. That unique status freed SNET from many of the regulatory restrictions that have kept other Bell phone companies from entering the long-distance market. Under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, for instance, Bell companies cannot sell long-distance service until they prove that their local phone markets are open to competition. So far, no Bell company has cleared that hurdle. SNET's success in selling long distance, coupled with the lack of progress competitors have had in prying open the local phone market, is proof that real competition won't occur until regulators force the hand of local phone companies, SNET's rivals contend. "Connecticut should serve as an excellent example as to why a local Bell company should not be allowed to offer long distance until it opens its local market to competition," Ramsey said. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Update on LincMad's Telecom Pages Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 02:39:54 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I have just completed a minor update on my website. * added information on a few upcoming splits * re-saved some of the graphics to ensure they use only "web-safe" colors * added the long-awaited page about "why not just go to 8-digit local numbers?" The map is still the one from late December, so it does not reflect the last revision of the 614/740 split (Ohio), nor the upcoming 805/661 split (California), 702/775 (Nevada), 504/225 (Louisiana), or 612/651 (Minnesota), nor the 305/786 and 813/727 overlays in Florida. With those caveats, though, the map is about as accurate as you can get on a Mercator projection. The URL is ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:00:10 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Last Laugh: Just a Normal Installation Several years ago, NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic) commenced a major project of replacing overhead cables throughout my suburban Boston neighborhood. Most of the existing cable had been installed in the early 1950s and consisted of a lead outer sheath over a bundle of individual copper conductors separated by color-coded paper insulation. Over the years, acid rain, squirrels and New England weather had taken its toll. Increased demand had outstripped available wire pairs and everyone was complaining about loud hum and incessant service interruptions. The project started in 1992 and went on for two more summers. Finally at the end of the third summer, the old cable was taken out of service and we were cut over onto the new cable in October of 1995. In 1996, the old cable was removed from the poles. In typical public utility fashion, it somehow was decided to replace a number of aging wooden poles midway through this process -- after the new cable had been carefully hung from the old poles. As a result, about one in five poles in the neighborhood have been double poles, lashed together by baling wire and awaiting first the removal of the old lead cable (done in 1996) and then the day when the new cable would be shifted from the old pole (1997) and the old pole removed. Such as been the situation in front of my house for the past few years. Now let's fast forward to last Thursday. For almost three months, I have been waiting for Bell Atlantic to convert one of my POTS lines to ISDN. They finally gave me an install date, and at exactly 9:15AM, my teenage son (who was home from school during the February vacation week), answered the door to find a Bell Atlantic technical standing there, right on schedule. We showed him the network interface location and he got right to work. A few minutes later, he announced that he needed to do more work at the termination point for our cable which is about three blocks away. At 11:00AM he returned, to announce that the folks who were supposed to have provisioned the line had not done everything they were supposed to do and that it would take a little while longer while he got them to get their act together. He said not to worry, that he was reasonably certain that he'd have the installation completed before the end of the day. About a hour later, my son comes running into my office and announces that the phone company guys are back. "That's good," I respond. "But you don't understand, dad," he says. "They've got three trucks and a crane in front of the house and one of the guys is cutting down the telephone pole with a chain saw!" Obviously, just a coincidence of timing, but I must say that my son is now telling all his friend about how ISDN is installed. And, BTW, the Bell Atlantic folks, much to their credit, did get the ISDN line up and running properly by 2:00PM. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #32 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 3 00:45:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA05410; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:45:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:45:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803030545.AAA05410@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #33 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Mar 98 00:45:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 33 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FTC to Review 1,200 Web Sites for Privacy Policy Disclosures (M. Solomon) Re: Book Review: "Netizens", Michael Hauben/Ronda Hauben (Ronda Hauben) Book Review: "Genealogy Online: Researching Your Roots" (Rob Slade) Deregulated Utilities Duke it Out (oldbear@arctos.com) New Area Code Being Considered for Philadelphia Region (Jeff Vinocur) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:08:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC to Review 1,200 Web Sites for Privacy Policy Disclosures FTC STAFF TO SURVEY CONSUMER PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET Beginning in March, the Federal Trade Commission staff will survey 1,200 commercial Web sites to determine the extent to which these sites, including sites directed to children, are disclosing how they collect and use personal information online. The staff also will analyze how many sites offer consumers choice regarding how their personal information is used. The Commission is currently preparing a report to Congress on the effectiveness of self-regulatory approaches to protecting consumers' privacy online. The survey results will be included in this report. Over the past three years, the Federal Trade Commission has been examining the personal privacy and consumer protection issues raised by the collection and use of information about consumers as they use the Internet. A number of public workshops have been held by the agency's Bureau of Consumer Protection. Throughout the workshops, the online industry has advocated self-regulation as the most efficient and effective means of creating online privacy protections. In addition, trade association representatives have made commitments to develop privacy policies as guidance for their members, and to encourage their members to disclose their own information practices on their Web sites. As part of the report to Congress, the Commission also will assess existing industry guidelines and principles. The Commission requests that interested trade associations and industry groups submit their guidelines and principles for consideration. The notice requesting industry guidelines and principles on online collection and use of consumers' personal information will be published in the Federal Register shortly. Submission is requested by March 31. All of the guidelines and principles submitted in response will be available for public inspection at the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Sixth Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 and to the extent technically possible on the FTC's web site at: http://www.ftc.gov (no period). The Commission's vote to approve the Federal Register notice was 4-0, with Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga not participating. ------------------------------------------- Copies of the notice, the transcripts of the workshops, a FTC staff report titled, "Consumer Privacy on the Global Information Infrastructure," as well as public commentary submitted for the workshops are available on the FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center; 202-326-3128; TDD for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/privacy2/index.html MEDIA CONTACT: Victoria Streitfeld Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2718 STAFF CONTACT: David Medine Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-3224 (FTC File No. 954 807) ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Re: Book Review: "Netizens", Michael Hauben/Ronda Hauben Date: 02 Mar 1998 13:59:20 GMT Organization: Columbia University Dear Pat: Welcome back!!! We missed you and the Digest. Usenet was not the same without you. It was a relief this morning to see you back online and to see posts on comp.dcom.telecom once again. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ronda Hauben has been a correspondent > here for several years, and has shared portions of her book with us > as it was being written. I am rather disappointed in the poor review > given her work by Rob Slade, and if Ms. Hauben wishes to respond I'll > be glad to publish her comments here. PAT Karin Geiselhart sent me a copy of the review she has submitted to Internet Research and said it was ok to post it on Usenet. Thanks for welcoming a response to Mr. Slade's review of Netizens. Michael and I had hoped that the book would encourage a debate over the vision for the future of the Net and in this spirit want to add Karin's review as a response to Mr. Slade. We welcome other voices in this important discussion. Ronda ronda@panix.com http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ ------------------------------- Review for Internet Research: Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by Michael and Ronda Hauben IEEE Computer Society, 1997, ISBN 0-8186-7706-6. 345 pages reviewed by Karin Geiselhart k.geiselhart@student.canberra.edu.au Netizens delivers on its title. It provides a chronicle of the development of the Internet, and particularly the venerable part called Usenet. It is almost an ethnographic study, as the authors are also long term participants on Usenet. Not surprisingly, the book reflects some of the character and contains some of the benefits and drawbacks of Usenet itself, as many of the chapters were first posted on the Internet. There are repetitions, homely but sincere writing, overlapping themes and a good dose of acronymic jargon in some places which might deter the uninitiated. Some sections, replete with copies of postings or appended with detailed notes, almost look like what we have become so used to scanning through on our screens. But beyond these idiosyncrasies, Netizens is a book which champions grass roots democracy. It speaks for and through the on-line citizens who helped shape the Net in its early days. The unfolding of ARPANET and unix is much more than a story of problem solving and the scientific method applied to new realms of computing. Like a fairy tale or myth we can enjoy hearing in many different versions, the birth of the Internet goes deep into our cultural psyche. It embodies what we want to believe about technological change: that it has loftier intent along with entrepreneurial energy. Of course, this is a very American story, so it is appropriate that it be told from the Haubens' American, yet gently challenging perspective. This is where Netizens is most interesting and highlights a theme which is today much muted: the role of blue sky research and government funding. Their history assembles detailed quotes from many of the pioneers. Back in 1968 Licklider and Taylor, of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, envisaged a network of computers which would move communication capabilities far beyond the linear transportation model of sender to receiver which prevailed at the time. They understood the potential for users being "active participants in an ongoing process", and foresaw the development of communities based on affinity and common interests. These were not visions with immediate commercial payback, and perhaps they never will be. The technical difficulties in establishing such a global network could only be handled through substantial amounts of non-profit funding, which is what ARPANET was given. One of the twists in the Internet story which lifts it to the level of near myth is the irony that the project had a military goal, but this required linking civilians so they could share information. The founding of unix had almost religious, and certainly philosophical undertones. The Haubens refer to descriptions of its development as "a system around which a fellowship would form." Here they touch on another grand theme of the Internet, reflexive progression. They ask, with innocent and irrefutable logic: "How else should one go about designing communications programs but on an operating system designed with the basic principle of encouraging communication?" Thus emerged a system which put power in citizens' fingertips and minds and eyes, provided a many to many capability, and raised the possibility of a read and write media as a counter to global leviathans. In their chapter on the effect of the net on professional news media, they again present real people's views and experiences to document their theoretical position. I must admit to a tiny thrill of recognition and pride, when I saw a quote from an Australian journalist of my acquaintance. And the pleasure of reading their book was enhanced by having met the Haubens at a conference or two. Probably nothing can replace face to face friendliness over a shared meal. But they could not be further from an academic elite. Although Ronda in particular draws on seventeenth and eighteenth century economic works and philosophers, the book never loses sight of its democratic intent. A further theme of universal access penetrates each part of this history: past, present, future, and theoretical framework. While the comparison between the Internet and the invention of the printing press is now commonplace, they flesh it out with succinct and pertinent quotes from Elizabeth Eisenstein's seminal book on the printing press in early modern Europe. And always highlighting the role of both technologies in opening new domains of learning, sharing, participating. Unfortunately, one of their own examples shows the naivete in hoping for empowerment through technology alone. In late 1994, the National Telecommunications Information Administration held a virtual conference to consider future directions for the US infrastructure. There was an outpouring of support for the social benefits of the Internet from all corners of the country. Eloquent arguments were made for universal access. However, the public's input to NTIA was not acted on, and the US backbone of the Internet was privatised in May 1995. Another sad coda to that episode is that, according to the Haubens, only 80 public access sites to the on line conference were made available in libraries or other public places. Correctly, they note that "One of the most difficult dilemmas of our times is how to deal with the discrepancy between the need for more public input into policy development and the actions of government officials who ignore that input." These tensions, like the theme of universal access, remain critical, even as electronic commerce spreads, supposedly in response to "market forces." By offering us detailed insights into the early days of these still unresolved issues, Netizens reminds us that technology should serve the people. They include part of a poem by Vint Cerf, another founding father of ARPANET. Written in the late 60s, it reveals his recognition of the intimate play between art and science, linked by a common thirst for knowledge. I could not help but remember his words as a keynote speaker at the Internet Conference in Montreal, nearly 30 years later, in response to a question from Scott Aiken, one of the founders of the Minnesota e-democracy project: "Democracy doesn't scale." Netizens is an affirmation by the authors on behalf of all their fellow Usenet contributors, and all of us who have benefitted in some way from the altruism and free information which flows across the Internet. Theirs is an optimistic mantra: democracy can scale. Karin Geiselhart PhD student Faculty of Communication University of Canberra http://student.canberra.edu.au/~u833885/home.htm ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 08:13:36 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Genealogy Online: Researching Your Roots" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKGENONL.RVW 971129 "Genealogy Online: Researching Your Roots", Elizabeth Powell Crowe, 1998, 0-07-014722-1, U$24.95 %A Elizabeth Powell Crowe %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-014722-1 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$24.95 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 293 p. %T "Genealogy Online: Researching Your Roots" It is rather amazing how, when you get a network connecting several million people and a few simple tools, you can find out interesting things about your family. Through misdirected email, idle curiosity, Web search engines, and selective Usenet mail forwarding, about a half dozen of us have formed the eponymous "Robert Slade Internet Club." The net is a natural for genealogical research. Crowe provides an initial chapter discussing how to get set up. Usually I don't look forward to such sections. Internet connection is a subject worthy of a book in its own right, so it can't be dealt with really properly in a brief once over. Too many authors simply use this part of the text to impress, throwing around unnecessary, and at the same time insufficient, technical information and jargon. Crowe takes a rock bottom, basic, practical approach. Those who are familiar with modem communications will find little detail, but nothing wrong, either. The book outlines what you need to get started: a modem, an ISP (Internet Service Provider), some Internet client software, a starter kit (becoming much more common these days), and maybe a little help. There is a warning about viruses, but while providing little information it is neither sensational nor alarmist. Chapter two looks at Usenet news, and covers not only newsreaders, access, and the newsgroups themselves, but also netiquette. The discussion of mailing lists, in chapter three, provides annotations as well as full directions on both posting and list administrative requests. (Mail clients are not covered, since Crowe considered them important enough to mention at the beginning.) Chapter four, on the Web and Web browsers, also contains quick information on telnet (actually pretty much exclusively on Hytelnet) and ftp. Although brief, the section on file transfers manages to touch on file types and the necessary archivers. Chapters nine and ten cover online library catalogues, and the Library of Congress Online. The Mormons (or, more properly, the Church of the Latter Day Saints, usually abbreviated LDS) are widely known for both their genealogical research experience and databases. As chapter eleven notes, these resources are not yet available online, but information is provided about what they have to offer. Although there is no specific mention of an earlier edition (the cover proclaims this to be the "Web Edition"), the book has the feel of being originally written when local bulletin boards systems (BBSs) were more important to the online community than there are today. Chapters five to eight look at BBSs, FidoNet, the National Genealogical Society BBS, and the Everton Publishers BBS. Chapters twelve to fifteen then overview the resources of the AOL (America OnLine), CompuServe, Prodigy, and MSN (Microsoft Network) commercial services. There are, though, definite gaps. Crowe concentrates on resources which return specifically genealogical information. There are a number of Internet tools that can help research family information. "People finding" Web sites are mentioned, but not strategies to find relatives. Some Web search engines are listed, but not AltaVista, which would allow you to search a very large portion of the full text of the Web, looking for names in conjunction with places, and so forth. Many similar tactics can be used to find potential family members and branches. Despite the shortcomings, this book does provide information to serious genealogical researchers on the resources available to them on the Internet. It also gives those who are already connected and have a vague interest some pointers on getting started in family research. Crowe's writing is brief, but clear, readable, and easily accessible. Perhaps a future edition can address the more subtle stratagems in online searching. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKGENONL.RVW 971129 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:34:17 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Deregulated Utilities Duke it Out In theory, deregulation was supposed to have competing utilities duking it out for consumer dollars in the marketplace. But the venue of choice appears to be the hearing room. When Boston Edison, an electric utility, constructed a fiber optic communications network for the purposes of managing its own facilities, it knew full well that there could be future opportunities to sell capacity on that network to others. And, among those others, is the upstart RCN, a retail venture of MFS and others, whose strategy is to provide bundled telecom packages -- local telephone, LD, net, cable TV, etc. -- to residential users as an alternative to the established local phone and cable companies. Meanwhile, Boston Edison has been reduced to an "electric distribution company" under electric utility deregulation requirements which have forced Edison to sell off its generating capacity. Revenue from that sale, along with the sale of other non-"electric distribution" assets, is supposed to be used to reduce prices charged to end users. Enter Cablevision of Boston and Brookline (not to be confused with the former Cablevision now known as MediaOne.) In a move to slow down the entry of RCN as a competitive provider, Cablevision of Boston and Brookline has intervened to cry "foul" concerning Boston Edison's leasing of fiber capacity to RCN. One may ask why the local telephone company, BellAtlantic, seems to be sitting this out and has not entered the fray. After all, RCN also intends to compete with BellAtlantic in providing local loop PSTN services. But Bell Atlantic would love to have competition in its local loop business -- one of its least profitable segments -- and one which the regulators have ruled will prevent BellAtlantic (and the other RBOCs) from entering the much more lucrative Long Distance Services market until such time as there is demonstrable competition in providing local loop. So, as it has been said in many different contexts: You don't always know who your friends are; you don't always know who your enemies are; and frequently the best strategy is just to keep your mouth shut. See excerpted news story below. Cheers, The Old Bear ---------- begin included text ----------- {The Boston Globe} - Business Section Friday, February 27, 1998 Cablevision: Edison cheating customers Says company leasing assets to RCN at fraction of true value By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff A cable television company and Attorney General Scott Harshbarger yesterday accused Boston Edison of shortchanging its customers by close to $100 million by leasing assets to a cable TV venture in which it is a stockholder at a fraction of their true value. Citing the testimony of three experts, Cablevision Systems Corp. said Edison illegally transferred valuable assets to the fledgling Residential Communications Network ("RCN") and then undervalued those assets by nearly $100 million. If true, it means Edison's electric customers will be forced to pay higher electric rates than they should. Under the state's new electric deregulation law, utilities are supposed to use the profits from any sale or lease of assets to help reduce rates. "Boston Edison's customers are entitled to that money and we want it to come back to them as quickly as possible," said George Dean, Harshbarger's top utility regulator. Harshbarger cited the testimony submitted by Cablevision in asking the Department of Telecommunications and Energy (formerly called the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities) to delay any decision on Edison's request to set up a holding company. Dean said the creation of a holding company would make it nearly impossible for state regulators to track the transfer of assets between the electric company and its for-profit ventures. Edison officials dismissed the charges. "There's nothing new here," said spokesman Michael Monahan. "It's simply Cablevision throwing another trash can in the street trying to stop competition." Edison vice president Dick Hahn said the utility previously offered use of its fiber-optic network to Cablevision and other cable companies and they showed no interest. He said a number of telecommunications companies, including MCI, are currently renting capacity from the network. The dispute puts the Department of Telecommunications and Energy in an awkward position. Acting Governor Paul Cellucci, who appoints the commissioners, has hailed the emergence of RCN as a competitor to existing cable monopolies, including Cablevision in Boston and Brookline. A ruling against RCN could put the brakes on that competition. The dispute is also full of irony. RCN has mounted a massive advertising campaign geared around its bid to tear down the existing cable and telephone monopolies in Massachusetts communities. But the charges raised by Cablevision suggest RCN may be getting some monopoly help itself. The issue dates back to 1993, when Boston Edison won approval from state regulators to invest $45 million in an unregulated subsidiary. Cablevision says the subsidiary was restricted to investments in three specific areas and was not allowed to invest in RCN. Thomas May, Edison's current chief executive, acknowledged in 1993 that Edison would have to get state approval to invest in any other venture. But Hahn said May misspoke in 1993 and that Edison was legally allowed to enter into a joint venture with RCN in 1997. He also said Edison at all times has sold access to its fiber-optic network to RCN and other companies at market value. But affidavits filed yesterday with the Department of Telecommuni- cations and Energy suggest Edison has invested more than $45 million in its unregulated subsidiary and substantially undervalued some of those investments. According to Gary Harpster, a consultant hired by Cablevision, Edison has made contributions of cash, assets, and guarantees to the unregulated subsidiary that, if priced at full market value, would be $140.8 million. "By transferring its fiber-optic network to the joint venture at far below full market value, Edison has shifted a substantial portion of the economic value associated with these assets from its ratepayers to its shareholders," added consultant Richard Silkman in his own affidavit for Cablevision. Peter Bradford, the third consultant hired by Cablevision, said Edison's actions "establish beyond a shadow of doubt that Boston Edison is harming electric customers.... Edison is making its electric customers the victims of a stranded-asset shell game." ------------------------------ From: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) Subject: New Area Code Being Considered for Philadelphia Region Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 21:59:35 GMT Organization: Netcom I heard on the news over the weekend that they are considering a new area code to be overlayed on the Philadelphia region. A few years ago, the suburbs were taken from 215 and assigned a new area code (610). Opinion: Personally, I think that mixing geographically split area codes and overlays is a mess. Whatever they start with (in this case a split) should be kept up. The general view according to the people the local news talked to is that people think this is stupid and we shouldn't get a new area code at all. Somehow I doubt they're doing this for fun, we must be (amazingly enough) out of exchanges again. Jeff Vinocur chip76@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3768/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #33 ***************************** Issue 34 mailed out of sequence, and appears following issue 35 in this archive ... TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Mar 98 03:06:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nevada's 702/775 NPA Split (Mark J. Cuccia) 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! (Kim Shaffer) Internet Fax Standards (oldbear@arctos.com) Trans-Oceanic Fiber Capacity (oldbear@arctos.com) Book Review: "Intranet Security: Stories from the Trenches" (Rob Slade) ATT Faces T-1 Line Shortage (Adam Gaffin) Take a Number, Any Number (Donald M. Heiberg) Telecom Update (Canada) #120, February 16, 1998 (Telecom Update) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:34:01 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Nevada's 702/775 NPA Split It was announced on Thursday 12 Feb. 1998, that Nevada's new NPA code will be 775, to split from 702. Permissive dialing will take effect on 12 December 1998. Mandatory dialing will begin on 15 May 1999. (Test number TBA) Nevada has two LATAs: 720 Reno NV (most all of Nevada - northern/central) 721 Pahrump NV (southern tip of Nevada) (and of course, some small extensions of LATA from neighboring adjacent states: CA, OR, ID, UT, AZ) The 721 Pahrump NV LATA contains the Las Vegas Metro Area (Clark County) which is traditionally the _independent_ (Sprint)-CENTEL LEC, but also contains some Bell in the Pahrump area, West-NW of Las Vegas. The NPA split will be where the shrunken NPA 702 will be most all of Clark County (Las Vegas Metro) _ONLY_. NPA 775 will contain the rest of the state. Therefore, shrunken NPA 702 will _not_ contain the Bell territory of Pahrump in the (southern Nevada) Pahrump LATA 721, but contain only the Sprint-Centel territory in LATA 721. Split-off NPA 775 will contain the (northern Nevada) Reno LATA 720, as well as the Bell territory of Pahrump in the (southern NV) Pahrump LATA 721. I _think_ that the shrunken 702 NPA will contain some extensions from a California LATA (PacBell territory), just southwest from Las Vegas. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Kim Shaffer Subject: 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:39:10 -0800 Organization: gte.net My mother, bless her computer ignorant soul, just purchased a computer for Christmas and managed to sign up with ATT WorldNet Services for her ISP. Unfortunately, she chose a long-distance access number thinking all she had to choose was a number in her state. I know, I know ... god, I have been on the phone with her all night. I work in the computer industry and I was proud of her for doing this by herself I didn't even think to check what number she was using, I feel so guilty. She said that after she almost dropped dead of the shock, (she thought she was being scammed by someone who had stolen her phone card, that is how naive she is ...) she called her phone provider -- who referred her to ATT. The person at ATT said she probably would not have to pay -- but I am so worried!!! ATT is her long distance provider -- US West is her local something and she goes through a small rural telephone company -- PTI out of Forks, Washington. I swear I have always thought that these were bad horror stories that only happened in suburbia jokes ... has anyone heard of this before? HELP! I am in total shock over this whole thing myself. PLEASE RESPOND BACK! Kimberly Shaffer http://www.bellydance.net http://home1.gte.net/~pcbunny http://www.geocities.com/paris/4373 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Kimberly actually sent this a couple weeks ago, while I was in a state of shock myself ... and I am sorry it did not get published earlier. Actually yes, I have heard of it before, and I suspect many readers here have heard of it before. The prevalence of this problem -- of people signing up with an ISP then not paying attention to what number they use for dial-up purposes -- is such that many ISPs on their sign up package include a disclaimer saying that they (the ISP) are not responsible for telephone charges incurred by the user, and that it is the full responsibility of the user to verify the local nature of the number being dialed. I suspect at least a few people have tried to hold the ISP responsible for huge phone bills they were not expecting as a result of many hours of connectivity with their new toy ... (sad smile) ... I can imagine your mother must be sick about it; this is a horrible experience for anyone, let alone a newcomer to the net, an older person who wants to 'get with it' and be part of the new millenium and all that. She meant well, and as you point out did a good job of getting her equipment purchased and set up only to have this happen. I do not know if the LD carrier will write it off, or even if they really should write it off, at least entirely. It isn't the fault of the rest of the ratepayers either. But surely they'll show some consideration and possibly give her some period of time to work out the payments. Very possibly you could intervene and ask telco to accept your own good (I assume) credit as sufficient payment arrangements for some part of the bill. Since she is using a division of AT&T as her ISP, that might carry some weight in her favor also. Then too, perhaps some generous netters might decide to send little bits of money directly to the telco serving your mother and ask that her account be credited; possibly as a way of saying welcome from an old-timer to a new user. I dunno, Kimberly, it is a difficult problem. If I put myself in telco's shoes it is hard to justify a write-off for any reason other than purely goodwill. But still, I *can* picture your mother and how discouraged she must be by all this. I've been around for years here and I still get discouraged lots of times by things I see on the net. With all my experience, things still blow up in my face and cause me setbacks. And the heck of it is, I am the moderator here, yet I look at a long list of exchanges for my local area codes and can seldom say for sure where most of the newer ones are located. I can easily see a newcomer and non-telecom saavy person getting in over their head. By now a couple weeks have passed since you first wrote me; I hope you have some positive news to report and that on seeing this printed you will respond with an update. And to readers in general: would you agree the technology is plunging ahead so rapidly now that even those of us who have been around a long time are starting to feel sort of helpless and left behind? I know I feel that way quite often any more. Does anyone around here keep up with more than five or ten percent of the action any longer if that much? One last thing Kimberly: whatever you do, talk to your mother soon about being EXTREMELY careful about giving out personal information or joining chat rooms, etc. Tell her not to put her name on the America OnLine Buddy Lists unless she feels like getting propositioned every thirty seconds by strange men from all over the world. Seriously, AOL has a real problem with that 'buddy' thing they operate, allowing instant messages to flow all over the net. Some users are reporting obscene messages at the rate of several per hour, especially if they are listed with a female name. Cheer up, mom will live through it and be wiser because of it. Good luck getting it cleared or adjudicated in your favor. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:33:36 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Internet Fax Standards The following is excerpted from Gordon Cook's content summary and announcement of the release of his March 1998 {COOK Report on the Internet}. Further information on this publication and other publications which Gordon produces may be obtained from his web site at . --- Forwarded message follows --- From: Gordon Cook Subject: March 1998 COOK Report on Internet published Date: 15 Feb 1998 15:19:40 -0800 INTERNET FAX STANDARDS COMPLETED Richard Shockey takes us on a tour of the likely fallout from the completion of joint ITU - IETF Internet fax standards. He points out that Internet fax should deploy even faster than Internet telephony since it is simpler to deploy and far more forgiving of network congestion and delay. Internet Fax is coming in two parts. The first is a store and forward model that is essentially based on the MIME attachment of TIFF files to standard E-Mail messages delivered by SMTP. The standards for this model are found in the IETF - ITU agreements of January 1998. The second part is an Internet draft that extends SMTP itself. The draft turns a fax machine into a virtual SMTP server so that transmission of the fax from point-to-point happens in real time. The protocol would extend SMPT beyond its function of a simple mail transport protocol to the point where, when a transport session is established, the user can exchange capabilities between devices - something that cannot be done with store and forward mail. Implementing these will be a series of hybrid "stupid-smart" devices that bridge faxes between the PSTN and the Internet. The Panasonic FO-770I, which is already on the market, is one such device with almost all the capabilities of the new standard . Load your fax, toggle "send" in one direction to transmit via the PSTN, toggle "send" in the other direction to go via the Internet. Shockey and others are working on the introduction of inexpensive "black boxes" to connect standard G3 faxes in small-office, home- office (SOHO) environments directly to one's PC and from there to the Internet. Where is this headed? Ultimately the intelligence will be in the keysets on everyone's desk and not in some centralized gateway device. If telephones, fax, printers, copiers and other standard office devices become more intelligent, as predicted by Moore's law, no intermediation between the Internet and the PSTN will be necessary. The gateways will become superfluous and the Internet will have completed its cannibalization of the PSTN. Surveys show that every Fortune 500 company is spending an aggregate of around $15 million a year on fax. 40% of all trans- Atlantic and trans-Pacific telephone calls are fax related. The early adapters of Internet FAX have realized that they would not need PSTN fax any more. 5% of the 25 billion dollar annual North American fax bill is likely to move rather quickly to the Internet. When it does, the screams from the PSTN side will be enormous. Fortune 1000 CIOs have just spent a fortune with Cisco or Bay Networks or Newbridge. They are soon going to realize that they can leverage their investment by getting rid of their PSTN connected fax machines as they become aware that they can start running voice and fax traffic over their IP networks for a very very small incremental cost. Some folk, like Robert Metcalfe and Charles Ferguson, are coming to believe that the Telco's are well aware of what is happening in the market place and are using every means necessary to preserve and defend their business models and monopolies. And that, rather than actually compete in the market place, they have chosen the courts and political process to defend their positions. Charles Ferguson's piece on the economics of the LEC environment is found at http://www-eecs.mit.edu:80/people/ferguson/telecom/ We urge readers to read it from cover to cover. Its analysis of the drag placed by the LECs on US economic growth is extremely powerful. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:00:01 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Trans-Oceanic Fiber Capacity The following is excerpted from Gordon Cook's content summary and announcement of the release of his March 1998 {COOK Report on the Internet}. Further information on this publication and other publications which Gordon produces may be obtained from his web site at . --- Forwarded message follows --- From: Gordon Cook Subject: March 1998 COOK Report on Internet published Date: 15 Feb 1998 15:19:40 -0800 UNDERSEA FIBER CARTEL We publish an anonymous interview with an authority who agreed to talk about the marketing and pricing practices of the transoceanic carrier consortia which allegedly dribble enough capacity onto the markets to keep prices high and act to set annual price ranges for availability of new leases. This is an area we first became aware of after our October 1996 interview with Teleglobe. We have since found a small number of people who would talk about the carrier consortia practices in private. Up to now we have never found someone who would talk in front of a tape recorder. If these practices continue outside the view of public knowledge, the era of the availability of virtually unlimited cheap telecommun- ications bandwidth envisioned by George Gilder, may never arrive. New blood represented by Qwest, Level 3 and Project Oxygen is coming into the market. No matter what happens in the US, without serious changes in trans-oceanic cable pricing, there will be Atlantic and Pacific choke points. A little recognized factor in the current continued high cost of DS3 circuits and long lead time for delivery is the need for carriers to calculate the load these circuits will place on trans-Atlantic and Pacific choke points and ensure that the bandwidth provisioned through their respective cable consortia is adequate. We asked two sources whom we consider authoritative to review this article. One, a bandwidth purchaser, responded that it is right on the money. The second, a bandwidth seller claimed that prices are dropping. The first countered that declines are tiny. Both were surprised that we had gotten anyone to comment - even off record. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 08:39:27 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intranet Security: Stories from the Trenches" BKINTRSC.RVW 971122 "Intranet Security: Stories from the Trenches", Linda McCarthy, 1998, 0-13-894759-7, U$29.95/C$41.95 %A Linda McCarthy %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1998 %G 0-13-894759-7 %I Prentice Hall %O U$29.95/C$41.95 800-576-3800 201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 %O betsy_carey@prenhall.com %P 260 p. %T "Intranet Security: Stories from the Trenches" Data security is more than somewhat akin to the weather. Many people talk a good line about how important it is to their company, but few invest the time, money, vigour, and rigour to make it really effective. There are some very good, practical, computer security books on the market. Leaving aside the really bad ones, though, there are also a great number of works that take a rather pompous academic approach to the concepts only, leaving the actual details of real dangers and protection as an exercise to the reader. McCarthy takes a different tack. Each chapter in this book is an authentic case study, with the names changed to protect the unfortunate. While this means that the text can't be easily used as a reference, with quick indexing of specific tasks, the content is firmly based in the real world, and informed with the author's insights into how people actually do react in an emergency. Techies may be unhappy with the lack of technical details in the inquiries. Too bad. Security is much more of a management issue than a technical one, and the stories show that clearly. The result is, therefore, much closer to "Digital Woes" (cf. BKDGTLWO.RVW) or "Computer-Related Risks" (cf. BKCMRLRS.RVW) than, say, "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" (cf. BKPRUISC.RVW). The book is also very readable. The chapters follow a format that includes a fictional worst case scenario, then presents the incident itself, gives a summary of the problems that led to the predicament, and finally suggestions for avoiding the trouble. The text is almost light, and loaded with personal entries both as observations of company situations and lively trivia. (I, too, have a sister much younger than I am.) Each investigation is chosen with a view to emphasizing a particular security problem or issue. Chapter one shows that without an incident response procedure, and exception report communications, even detection of attacks can fail to protect the enterprise. The danger of shrink-wrapped, out-of-the-box solutions is demonstrated in chapter two. As I noted at the beginning, data security gets a lot of lip service, particularly from management. Chapter three reveals the wrong way for executives to promote security--and also tells you how to do it right. Security requires a cooperative effort, as chapter four points out, and failure to specify areas of responsibility can result in loopholes and vulnerabilities. Chapter five looks at another area that gets more speeches than spending--training. Risk assessment, and the risk of not assessing risks, is the theme of chapter six. Where chapter four looks at the negligence in determining roles with respect to security, chapter seven finds that drawing the lines too finely can also result in gaps in coverage and protection. Over the years I have railed against antivirus procedures that are not effective because they are too draconian for people to actually use if they want to get work done. Chapter eight discloses the problem with unrealistic policies in any field of security. As chapters four and seven point out the potential difficulties where individual partners each leave security to the other, so chapter nine demonstrates the same problem between companies doing business together. Chapter ten points out the importance of encryption--the backbone of all data security--in every area of corporate activity. Finally, the techies can be happy with chapter eleven. It gives a detailed log of a system penetration. I will forgive McCarthy her use of the term "hacker" (she does mention the hacker/cracker controversy) for someone bent on security breaking, since she so forcefully derides the image of the invader as an "evil genius." An appendix provides contact information for tools, products, incident response teams, and security organizations. I was rather disappointed to find that Internet references for a number of the tools do not specify full location information, that relatively few security organizations are listed, that the antiviral systems mentioned are not of the top rank, and, most important of all, none of the international emergency response teams are from Canada. This book belongs on every security and management bookshelf. For the non-specialist manager, it provides enough background to prompt the right questions and concerns. For the head down data security specialist ... when was it you needed to make that pitch to the executive committee? copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINTRSC.RVW 971122 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca BCVAXLUG Admin Chair http://peavine.com/bcvaxlug/ DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security groups ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: ATT Faces T-1 Line Shortage Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 15:17:49 GMT Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Organization: Network World Fusion The following's from Network World, 2/16/98. You can can read the entire article at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0216t1.html (registration required, but it's free). By David Rohde Network World Users beware: The seams on AT&T's overtaxed network are ready to burst. AT&T officials last week confirmed that high traffic demands have used up the capacity on some of the company's switches and transport routes, and the carrier is now delaying orders for T-1 access lines in many parts of the country. The carrier has ordered account representatives to delay processing T-1 orders in designated "hot spots" until AT&T can provision enough new ports and circuits to carry the traffic. The shortages affect access to high-volume outbound and inbound voice services, as well as core data services that require a dedicated access line, such as private lines and frame relay. ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Take a Number, Any Number Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 08:36:56 -0700 Rocky Mountain News, Denver http://insidedenver.com/amole/0215gene.html Gene Amole Take a number, any number A-2310. Were you surprised at plans to institute 10-digit telephone dialing in Denver? I wasn't. There is no stopping what I call creeping numeralism in our lives. We are not people anymore. We are just numbers. When I was a little kid I had terrible nightmares of being overwhelmed by numbers. They were pouring down on me so fast I couldn't keep my head above them. I couldn't breathe. Maybe that's why I was always lousy at math. Creeping numeralism started with Social Security. I have had a Social Security number since we've had Social Security. I have it on the original card in my billfold right next to the good-luck, four-leaf clover my mother gave me when I went off to war. It must have worked, because I am still here. Any old soldier who saw the A-2310 at the top of this column knows what it means. It was my number used to mark my possessions to keep them from being confused with someone else's. This ID number was made of the first letter in my last name and the last four numbers of my ASN (Army Serial Number.) Creeping numeralism's greatest victory came when the phone companies switched to all-digit dialing instead of using the friendly old prefixes like MAine, TAbor, SPruce, GRand, KEystone, PEarl and others. The great general semanticist, S.I. Hayakawa, conducted an unsuccessful national campaign against all-digit dialing. Somehow, with no prefixes, the telephone became less linguistic and more impersonal. It was really personal before the dial came into use. You'd pick up the phone and a woman, whose name was Central, would say, "Number puleeze." She was a real living and breathing person, nothing like the recorded ladies who answer business telephones these days with complex menus, instructing you to push certain buttons to get other recorded ladies who tell you that all their representatives are busy, but that your call is important to them. You may have also noticed the Postal Service has added four more numbers to ZIP codes. I am at near capacity and may soon just explode from numerical overload. I am beginning to feel like a character in George Lucas' 1971 futuristic film, THX 1138, with only numbers separating us from everyone else. I have been buying flowers from the same florist for more than 30 years. The other day I called to place an order and the operator asked me for my account number. "ACCOUNT NUMBER?'' I thundered. "My God, I have to remember my personal identification number (PIN) to get $20 out of my account from an automated teller machine (ATM). At work, I have a mail box number and password number for voice mail messages and another password to get into my computer at work and another to get on the Internet. "I have another number for the burglar alarm at my house. There are account numbers on all my insurance policies and charge cards. There is another number on my safe deposit box at the bank, and now, you want me to remember my account number at the florist?" How come. Just how many Gene Amoles are there in Lakewood, or Colorado, or even the United States. I have never heard of another Gene Amole anywhere. Do I need a name and a number to order flowers for Valentine's Day? End of column, or as Carl Akers used to say at the end of his TV newscast: "That's 30." Gene Amole's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. (gamole@aol.com) February 15, 1998 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 11:30:08 -0500 From: Telecom Update Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #120, February 16, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 120: February 16, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell Executive Office Reorganized Again ** LD Competition in the North -- But Not Yet ** BC Tel Seeks Business Local Rate Changes ** Royal Bank, AT&T Intro Internet Service ** Long Distance Price War BC Tel MTS WinTel ** BC Rail Plans Westel Spin-Off ** Mitel Buys UK Chip Maker ** Microcell Launches Venture Fund ** Iridium and Mobility Sign Roaming Pact ** Ottawa U Opens Telecom Lab ** BT to Buy MCI's Share in Concert ** PSINet Completes Istar Acquisition ** 250,000 Use Rogers Cantel PCS ** 12,000 Use Shaw Wave ** Quarterly Reports Bruncor fONOROLA Microcell Telus ** Motorola Correction ** Telecom Acronym Guide ============================================================ BELL EXECUTIVE OFFICE REORGANIZED AGAIN: After only five months on the job, Bell Canada President Ron Osborne has resigned to head Ontario Hydro. Effective February 28, John MacDonald will become Bell's President and COO; Jean Monty, who is President and CEO of the telco's parent, BCE, will be Bell's Chairman and CEO. LD COMPETITION IN THE NORTH -- BUT NOT YET: CRTC Telecom Decision 98-1, released February 11, sets July 1, 2000, as the start date for Long Distance competition in Northwestel's territory. The Commission wants to complete its review of service to high-cost serving areas before making the change. In the meantime, local rates will rise by $4/month this year, and by $6 in 1999. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d981_0.txt BC TEL SEEKS BUSINESS LOCAL RATE CHANGES: BC Tel has asked the CRTC to approve lower business local rates in urban areas and higher rates elsewhere. Proposed changes to multiline business rates range from a $16.85 decrease to an $8.25 increase. ROYAL BANK, AT&T INTRO INTERNET SERVICE: The Royal Bank and AT&T Canada have unveiled their long-anticipated Internet service for small businesses. Royal Bank connect@work packages provide Internet access, secure on-line banking and Web site hosting; prices range from $29.95 to $69.95/month. LONG DISTANCE PRICE WAR: More dispatches from the battlefront: ** BC Tel's new "Affinity Evenings and Weekends" plan offers 10 cents/minute in Canada on weekends; 12 cents/minute in Canada on weekday evenings; and 24 cents/minute in Canada and the U.S. on weekdays. ** MTS: The "First Rate" plan of Manitoba's MTS offers 10 cents/minute in Canada, evenings and weekends; 9 cents/minute in Canada on Saturdays; 20 cents/minute to the U.S. evenings and weekends; and 25% off regular rates on weekdays. ** WinTel Communications, a subsidiary of London Telecom Group, has extended its 7 cents/minute weekend rate for calls in Canada to cover evenings as well. (See Telecom Update #103) BC RAIL PLANS WESTEL SPIN-OFF: Provincially owned British Columbia Railway has retained Nesbitt Burns to oversee the spin-off of its long distance carrier subsidiary, Westel Telecommunications. MITEL BUYS UK CHIP MAKER: Mitel has acquired Plessey Semiconductors Ltd. from General Electric for US$225 Million. Plessey makes chips for telecom and personal computer applications. MICROCELL LAUNCHES VENTURE FUND: Microcell Telecommunications, joined by eight other wireless carriers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, has launched a venture capital firm to invest in companies which develop GSM-based products and services. GSM Capital begins operations with US$137 Million, of which $15 Million was committed by Microcell. IRIDIUM AND MOBILITY SIGN ROAMING PACT: Under an agreement signed February 12, subscribers to Iridium's planned satellite-based network will be able to use Mobility Canada's cellular network, using the satellites only when terrestrial facilities are not available. OTTAWA U OPENS TELECOM LAB: Bell Canada is funding a new research laboratory at the University of Ottawa, which will develop high-speed Internet services. BT TO BUY MCI'S SHARE IN CONCERT: The CEO of British Telecom says BT will soon buy out MCI's share in Concert, a joint venture which provides international telecom services. No word on how this will affect Stentor, which is a member of Concert but allied with MCI. PSINET COMPLETES ISTAR ACQUISITION: PSINet has completed its acquisition of Istar Internet Inc. The company will retain the Istar name for consumer services, while migrating business customers to PSINet service. 250,000 USE ROGERS CANTEL PCS: Rogers Cantel says that 250,000 customers are now using its Digital PCS service. 12,000 USE SHAW WAVE: Shaw Communications says it now has 12,000 customers for Wave high-speed Internet access service. All Shaw customers in Calgary can now receive Wave; it is also offered in parts of Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Saskatoon, and Toronto. QUARTERLY REPORTS: ** Bruncor, parent of NB Tel, had net income of $49.9 Million in 1997, before a one-time charge of $69.5 Million. ** fONOROLA Inc's 1997 revenues were $400 Million, up from $276 Million in 1996. Net earnings were $10 Million, compared to a loss of $2.8 Million the previous year. ** Microcell Telecommunications, which is spending heavily on network expansion, lost $231.5 Million on total revenue of $27.3 Million. The company is forecasting positive cash flow in 2000. ** Telus has joined most other Stentor makers in writing off major assets. A $285 Million one-time charge contributed to the company losing $3.2 Million in 1997, compared to a profit of $243 Million in 1996. MOTOROLA CORRECTION: The name of Motorola Canada's new CEO and President is Micheline Bouchard. TELECOM ACRONYM GUIDE: Bewildered by telecom's propensity for abbreviations? Check out "Acronymity '98: A Manager's Guide to Telecom's Alphabet Soup" in the February issue of Telemanagement. The five-page glossary covers most of the acronyms which Canadian telecom professionals are likely to hear or read in the course of normal work. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or use our Online Subscription Form at http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ** Subscribe by February 27 and receive a free bonus: "Front Line Telecom Management in the 1990s: Practical Advice From a Telecom Consultant's Notebook." ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #35 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 3 03:23:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA12316; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:23:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:23:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199803030823.DAA12316@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #34 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Mar 98 01:49:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 34 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #122, March 2, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Texas PUC Seeks Three New Area Codes (Greg Monti) 602 NPA Split (Dave Stott) Partial Outage/NYC. Parts of Wall St, Others Affected (Danny Burstein) Book Review: "Effective E-Mail: Clearly Explained" (Rob Slade) California's 19th Area Code to Debut Despite Resident Complaints (Tad Cook) Iowa State Correspondence Training (Paul Rosenberg) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 11:06:41 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #122, March 2, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 122: March 2, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell Shake-Up Continues ** CRTC Considers Canada-Canada Bypass ** Bell Launches Business Internet Service With Free Offer ** Budget Funds Optical Internet Project ** Price Cap Decision This Week ** MTS Intros Digital PCS ** BCE Mobile Raises $257 Million ** BC Telecom Sets Up New-Media Fund ** CRTC Seeks Comment on DAL Contribution ** Nortel Expands Wireless Portfolio ** Westel Intros Paging Service ** Price Caps Proceeding for Telus Edmonton ** Newbridge Writes Off $181 Million ** Subscribers, Revenue, Losses Rise at Clearnet ** Cantel Extends Wireless Data to Calgary ** COO Exits Cantel ** MetroNet Hires New CEO, Reports on Growth ** How to Profit From the LD Price War ============================================================ BELL SHAKE-UP CONTINUES: The shake-up of Bell Canada's top leadership team continues, with the abrupt departure on February 25 of Ontario Group Vice-Presidents Don Morrison (Consumer Markets and Sales) and Bruce Barr (Marketing Communications and Retail). Josee Goulet has been promoted to a new position which combines both portfolios. CRTC CONSIDERS CANADA-CANADA BYPASS: Should carriers be permitted to route calls between Canadian locations through the United States? On February 27, The CRTC, which was already considering in Public Notice 97-34 whether to permit routing of overseas calls through the U.S., asked participants in that proceeding to comment on Canada-U.S.- Canada routing by March 25. BELL LAUNCHES BUSINESS INTERNET SERVICE WITH FREE OFFER: Bell Canada has launched a new "business class" dialup Internet service, dubbed Advantage Internet. The telco is offering up to one year of free dial-up service, worth up to $685, to users of its Advantage Optimum long distance savings plan. http://www.aibn.ca BUDGET FUNDS OPTICAL INTERNET PROJECT: Ottawa's new budget includes $55 Million to launch CANARIE's next-generation network initiative, which aims to develop a high-speed, all-optical Internet backbone in Canada. ** The budget also approved $205 million over three years for SchoolNet and the Community Access Program. PRICE CAP DECISION THIS WEEK: The CRTC will release its Price Cap Implementation Decision on Thursday, March 5, at 9:00am. Among other things, the decision will include final "going-in" local rates and the rationale for the rate increases, which were effective January 1. MTS INTROS DIGITAL PCS: MTS Mobility has begun digital wireless service at 800 MHz in Winnipeg. Airtime is $30 for 150 minutes/month; $60 for 600 minutes. BCE MOBILE RAISES $257 MILLION: BCE Mobile has raised $257 Million from an equity issue; 65% of this was taken up by BCE Corp. (See Telecom Update #112) BC TELECOM SETS UP NEW-MEDIA FUND: BC Telecom has established a five-year $10-Million fund to encourage development of new media and television broadcast content. (See Telecom Update #87, 102) For information, go to http://www.bctel.com/b_creative/ CRTC SEEKS COMMENT ON DAL CONTRIBUTION: CRTC Telecom Public Notice 98-4 reopens the contentious issue of contribution fees on long distance traffic carried over Direct Access Lines. To participate, notify the Commission by March 27. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p984_0.txt NORTEL EXPANDS WIRELESS PORTFOLIO: Northern Telecom announced six new wireless products last week, including: ** Wireless Voice-Activated Dialing, which offers no-hands dialing and feature access for digital and analog wireless phones. ** "Reunion," a portfolio of base-station and other equipment for wireless broadband (LMCS) providers. ** A small wireless switch that promises economical service for as few as 50 subscribers. WESTEL INTROS PAGING SERVICE: BC's Westel Telecommunications has launched WestPage, with airtime rates beginning at $5.95/month. PRICE CAPS PROCEEDING FOR TELUS EDMONTON: CRTC Telecom Public Notice 98-3 seeks comment on extending the Price Caps regime now in effect for most Stentor members to Telus (Edmonton) on January 1, 1999. The proceeding will set the telco's going-in rates and 1998 contribution rate. To participate, notify the Commission by March 25. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p983_0.txt NEWBRIDGE WRITES OFF $181 MILLION: Newbridge Networks has taken a one-time charge of $181 Million for write-offs, severance, and facilities closure of the former UB Networks. Revenues for the quarter ending February 1 were $358 Million, a decline from the previous quarter caused by falling sales of Newbridge's time division multiplexers. SUBSCRIBERS, REVENUE, LOSSES RISE AT CLEARNET: Clearnet reports revenue of $40.0 Million and a net loss of $147 Million for the fourth quarter. On December 31, Clearnet had 152,000 subscribers (including analog SMR). "The faster we grow, the greater our short-term loss," said CFO Robert McFarlane. CANTEL EXTENDS WIRELESS DATA TO CALGARY: Rogers Cantel now offers its Mobitex wireless data service in Calgary, its first location in western Canada. COO EXITS CANTEL: Rogers Cantel says that Executive Vice- President and COO Kent Thexton is leaving. Cantel says his departure "follows [its] recent announcement to realign the Company to better serve the Canadian wireless market." METRONET HIRES NEW CEO, REPORTS ON GROWTH: MetroNet Communications has chosen Craig Young, previously President of the U.S. competitive local carrier Brooks WorldCom, as its President and CEO. Two MetroNet founders, Eric Hobson and Bob McKenzie, will now "begin a transition of their current operating responsibilities." ** As of December 31, MetroNet had installed five voice switches and 10,370 km of fiber, and was providing service to 4,000 local access lines. Fourth-quarter revenue: $2.8 Million. HOW TO PROFIT FROM THE LD PRICE WAR: Business can make big savings today by getting competitive bids on long distance service, but non-price issues are crucial to a successful deal. Learn more in two articles now on the Angus TeleManagement Web site (http://www.angustel.ca) ** "The New Long Distance Price War: Big Bargains for Smart Customers," by Ian and Lis Angus ** "Long Distance Deals: Rates Aren't Everything," by Henry Dortmans Both articles appeared in the February issue of Telemanagement. To subscribe to Telemanagement, go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html or call 1-800- 263-4415 ext 225. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 13:35:08 From: Greg Monti Subject: Texas PUC Seeks Three New Area Codes On Thursday, February 27, 1998, an article appeared on the Business section front of the {Dallas Morning News} entitled "PUC Seeks New Dallas Area Code". A summary: The Texas Public Utilities Commission chairman, Pat Wood, has called for three new area codes for Texas, one each for Dallas, Houston and Austin/Corpus Christi. The Dallas code would be an overlay of both the existing 214 and 972 codes. The Houston one would be an overlay of both 713 and 281. The article isn't specific about the Corpus Christi case, but I infer that the new code would cover Corpus, while Austin would retain 512. All three codes could go into affect by late 1998, although no hard dates were mentioned. This time, neither the PUC nor the telephone companies are basing the need on the explosion of fax machines, wireless phones or second residential lines. The PUC chairman is doing all the blame-fixing himself this time around: he blames it the telephone industry of Texas, for insisting that telephone numbers be handed out to telcos in blocks of one prefix (10,000 numbers). Each competitive carrier must have at least one prefix in each area where it offers service, even if it has far less than 10,000 customers there. If numbers could be given out to telcos in smaller increments, the introduction dates for the new area codes could be pushed two years later, said the Chairman. Wood said that Southwestern Bell and other companies have filed briefs that he interprets to mean that the telcos will sue if they must implement a number conservation plan that would require them to accept and assign numbers in blocks smaller than 10,000. (Not mentioned in the article: This would require individual telephone prefixes to be divided among competing carriers. Calls are currently priced based on the area code and prefix. If more than one carrier shares a prefix, and are compensated differently, pricing and access charges for calls might need to be based on all 10 digits.) Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 07:28:05 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: 602 NPA Split Well I attended one of the public comment meetings about the new 602 (Phoenix, AZ) split/overlay, and it appears the AZ Corp. Comm. still hasn't decided what to do. The geographic split would leave 602 mostly in Phoenix proper, from the far south, where the city abuts the Gila River Indian nation to the far north, where the city meets the 520 NPA. This leaves the west side of 602 and the east side of 602, two apparently separate, non-contiguous chunks of Maricopa County, as the new NPA. This leads me to wonder -- are there other non-contiguous NPAs in the NANP area (excluding Hawaii, of course)? Maybe the ACC is looking at this to complement our already unique non-contiguous N. Arizona LATA! Unfortunately, the map shows that the split isn't as clean as it might sound. Parts of eastern and western Phoenix fall into the new area code. Paradise Valley is split between the two codes on a north (new) / south (602) basis. Glendale is worse, with the southern part of town going to the new code, the central piece of town staying in 602, and the northern piece going to the new code. Tiny pieces of both Scottsdale and Tempe fall into the 602 area but the majority of both cities go to the new code. Mostly the meeting was to get public comment, and all six of us who attended gave our viewpoints. (Note: this was the biggest turnout yet to one of these meetings, according to the ACC staffer!) There was no consensus among us as to which was best, but I did suggest that if the ACC decides to go with the geographic split they also mandate permissable ten-digit dialing within the two area codes so that people like me can just program everything for ten-digit dialing. The Commissioner who was there liked the idea. I'll keep you updated as more information becomes available. Dave S. (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ====================================================================== Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 21:51:53 EST From: danny burstein Subject: Partial Outage/NYC. Parts of Wall St, Other Businesses Affected Phone outage causes city chaos The Associated Press 02/25/98 7:51 PM Eastern NEW YORK (AP) -- Businesses across the city, including hospitals and the New York Mercantile Exchange, were thrown into turmoil Wednesday by a regional telephone outage that caused scattered interruptions of services. The problem, which began shortly before 2 p.m. EST, was traced to a breakdown in equipment owned by Illuminet Inc., a privately-held company that provides signaling and other services to phone company networks. [snip] (The article continues by noting, to my surprise, that:) AT&T, the nation's top long-distance carrier, experienced problems "across the United States," said spokesman David Johnson. (It continues with descriptions of problems faced by various small and large businesses throughout the NY area, including:) At Columbia-Presbyterian (a major NYC hospital center), a switchboard operator who declined to give her name said, "It's chaos, total chaos." (The article adds that this all seemed to have started with a problem in Illinois, which shows the increasing interdependance and, in some cases vulnerability, of parts of the phone network). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My 800 number was out of order last Wednesday also, but it was due to an El Nino style storm and mudslide in California (!) according to Call America/My Line, which handles my service. Normally, you *never* get a busy signal (or a ring for that matter) when calling my 800 number. After a couple seconds of silence following dialing, you hear me begin to speak on the recorded greeting which answers. So last Wednesday, calls to the 800 number -- but not the 415 version which is cross-linked to it -- received a busy signal returned locally here in Skokie by the central office. Interestingly enough, someone who dialed it from California -- where the fiber was cut in a mud slide incident -- got through just fine on both the 800/415 numbers. Meanwhile, anyone around here trying to reach me, Skokie CO busies them out, and this lasted for about eight hours. Is that strange or not? I tried calling MyLine on their 800 number and Skokie CO returned a busy signal on their line also ... but if I called myself on my 415 number, then used my admin code to exit voicemail, sit on their switch and dial MyLine, it went through fine as did an intra-switch call to my own 800 number while I was parked on their switch. The MyLine rep said the fiber cut was 'in a different section of California' where calls to me were routed; on the other hand, their office is in San Luis Obispo with 415 foreign exchange lines (among other things) and that was routed 'from northern California somewhere ... ' (rep's words). I've not mentioned MyLine here recently, and I really should. They offer a very reasonable, low-cost combination 800 inbound/outbound service, plus voicemail and other stuff. The inbound 800 number works like AT&T's 'follow me 500 service' but better. You also have the option to make outgoing calls by dialing in to your 800 number and dialing back out at rates a lot cheaper than any calling card I have found. I have been a subscriber there for a few years now, and Jeff Buckingham, one of the owners of the company has been a regular subscriber here for just as long. If you want, you can have a non-800 number linked in from one of several California area codes. This is useful if you receive international calls from places where access to your 800 number won't work for some reason. The MyLine switch can even understand fax signals when it hears them and route incoming calls to whatever number your fax is on automat- ically; that is in addition to routing incoming voice calls to one of three locations as you program it. Also, 'virtual call waiting' along with conferencing is part of the package. If a call comes in on your 800 number while the MyLine switch knows you are also on line you hear a little beep and MyLine says, 'excuse me, you have an incoming call waiting.' If you want to accept the call then and there you press a key and the switch patches you in to the new call while keeping your existing call on hold. Seriously, the best 800 service I've ever seen. If you want more information, email one of these folks: estrong@callamerica.com (Ernie Strong) beth-harris@callamerica.com (Beth Harris) jbucking@callamerica.com (Jeff Buckingham) If you insist, they'll assign you an 888 number (grin ... ) but I think they still have plenty of the old-fashioned 800 style available also. Figure around $20-25 per month for a very nice complete package. Great customer service and probably it will be turned on and working within a day of your order. Mention me please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 07:41:22 -0800 Subject: Book Revieww: "Effective E-Mail: Clearly Explained", Bradley Shimmin Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKEFFEML.RVW 971129 "Effective E-Mail: Clearly Explained", Bradley Shimmin, 1997, 0-12-640060-1, U$39.95/C$55.95 %A Bradley Shimmin bshimmin@ultranet.com bshimmin@stearns.com %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1997 %G 0-12-640060-1 %I Academic Press/Academic Press Professional/Harcourt Brace %O U$39.95/C$55.95 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 fax: 619-699-6380 %P 292 p. + CD-ROM %T "Effective E-Mail: Clearly Explained" While Web traffic continues to grow with ever larger graphics, sound, and video files being flung to all corners of the world, and despite dancing banners that delight the hearts of the hard core gaming crowd, the "don't you dare take away my access" killer app of the net is still email. And there are a large number of people who could use it more effectively. Shimmin's definition of "effective" might differ from that of some other people. The book takes a rather technical look at email, although not one that is beyond the grasp of an intelligent and dedicated reader. Still, he does tend to throw the reader in at the deep end, starting off an explanation of the concepts of email with a dissection of a full header. Shimmin seems to be OK with redefining many other terms, and even concepts. Chapter two supposedly deals with file formats. Of course, this is intended to refer to file attachments that you may receive with email. The book assumes that the reader is using a mail agent that will automatically deal with encoding: not always the case. He does overview graphics, sound, and movie file formats, and notes a few programs that can be used to deal with them. In some cases, though, it is assumed that the user will access the files through a Web browser. (In which case, one wonders why Shimmin does not simply assume the use of one of the later versions of Web browsers to deal with mail, and deal with pretty much all aspects of decoding and playing.) "Text file" is also redefined to include documents which contain non-printable material such as proprietary word processor formats. (He also has interesting ideas about how .CHK files are created.) Archiving and compression is looked at briefly in chapter three. On the one hand, the formats listed tend to be only the most common. On the other, there are some listed that Shimmin admits you are unlikely to see in your lifetime. The biggest problem, though, is that the text looks only at archival formats specific to the platform under which they are most popular. Most users need help on those formats from other platforms they do not deal with on a regular basis. In a sense, chapters two to four are backwards. It is only in the last that the book deals with the base encoding formats such as BinHex, uuencode, or base64. The chapter does make a quick nod to cross-platform difficulties: the recommended utility does deal with all three encoding styles. However, it only runs on Windows. Chapter five starts out by saying that the previous material has dealt with the most frustrating and difficult parts of email. Then it goes on to look at SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), POP (Post Office Protocol), IMAP (Internet Message Access Protocol), and error messages. Chapter six looks at various aspects of non-standard email systems, including a revisit of encoding formats. Eventually getting around to practical search tools for finding people on the net, chapter seven starts by discussing LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) and X.500. Although chapter eight portrays itself as dealing with "high octane" email, it discusses some fairly basic issues of configuration and mail management. Chapter nine talks about various problem areas, such as netiquette and viruses. At times it is difficult to determine whether or not Shimmin is recommending that users pursue courses of vengeance, and there isn't a really strong warning that such activity could get them into trouble. The suggested activities in the section on viruses aren't bad, although the implications of some of the background explanations are a little odd. Encryption concepts aren't covered terribly well in chapter eleven, but it does provide a good guide for getting and using Zimmermann's PGP program. Chapter eleven looks at a few non-email technologies. An appendix provides contact information for a variety of email tools and information resources. Overall, the book provides a good deal of interesting and potentially useful information. The level of presentation is suitable to the novice, or non-technical, user, and also to the intermediate user who has been dealing with email for some time, but only at a basic level. The organization, and sometimes presentation, of the material could use some work, though. There are also a number of topics that could help people be more effective in email usage that don't make it into the book. Mailing lists, netiquette, and the multiplicity of mail agents are three subjects that do get mentioned, but deserve a larger place. For those new to email, or wanting to advance in some areas, this book does have useful information. You will have to dig for it, and remember not to trust everything you read. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKEFFEML.RVW 971129 ------------------------------ Subject: California's 19th Area Code to Debut Despite Resident Complaints Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:47:28 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) California's 19th area code to debut despite resident complaints MARTINEZ, Calif. (AP) -- First they were 415, then 510 and soon many east San Francisco Bay area residents will have to get used to another area code -- 925. California's 19th area code goes into effect March 14 for most of Contra Costa County, as well as the eastern portions of Alameda County. The last change occurred in 1991, when most of the East Bay switched from 415 to 510. Customer response to the additional area code has not been positive. "It's an inconvenience and I wish the phone company would make up its mind," said Jeff Gottlieb, owner of Walnut Creek Printing Co., whose business depends on customers needing new stationery and business cards. Chris Kniestedt, a spokesman for the California-Nevada Code Adminis- tration, which orders area code changes, said the growing demands of the Internet, modems, pagers, phones and faxes is driving the need for the new area code. Even swiping an ATM or credit card through the machine at the supermarket or gas pump requires a phone call. "There is really an incredible proliferation of the need for these additional services. Every year it continues to escalate and grow," said Kniestedt, who added that California will have 23 area codes by the end of the year. There will be a six-month grace period in which callers can still dial 510. Contra Costa officials anticipate some problems because the change splits the county into two area codes, with central and eastern cities in the new 925 area code and western communities in the old 510 area code. "If someone has to call Martinez from Richmond, they'll have to dial those three extra digits," said county General Services Director Bart Gilbert. "It will not cost more, but it will create a bit of confusion." ------------------------------ From: Paul A. Rosenberg Subject: Iowa State Correspondence Training Date: 3 Mar 1998 04:20:32 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Corp A new correspondence course from Iowa State University and ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR magazine allows you to learn data communications at home, at your own pace, and for a very reasonable price. It covers structured cabling, Category 5 cabling, the new Level 6 and 7 cabling, digital telephony, the Internet, and even the installation of optical fiber. If you need to get trained in data communication, this may be the opportunity you are looking for. Provided by a leading trade magazine and a top University, the certification that comes with this course carries a lot of weight. Here is what the course covers: Lesson 1 The Basics Of Data Communications. Intro to the course. An easy-to-understand tutorial in how and why data signals are sent from one place to another. Signal quality versus signal strength. Digital versus analog. Digital signal failure. Basic communication network structures. Lesson 2 Types of Data Networks (Category 5, 6, 7). Why we need networks, and how they are built. The fundamental concerns in network architecture. Common types of data networks. Ethernet, EIA/TIA 568, Structured Cabling, FDDI. Lesson 3 Designing Data Networks (Category 5, 6, 7). Network components. Understandable explanations of servers, bridges, routers, multiplexers. LAN equipment, WAN equipment. Sample network diagrams, etc. Lesson 4 Data Cables & Hardware (Category 5, 6, 7). Characteristics and applications of Category 5, Category 6, Category 7, and fiber cables. Termination devices, outlets, patch panels, splicing trays, etc. Lesson 5 Installation of Data Cabling (Category 5, 6, 7). Installation mechanics, pulling tensions, twist patterns, layout and working drawings, as-builts, cable marking, cable management. Cable protection, crowded and hazardous environments, separation from other systems, etc. Lesson 6 Testing Data Cabling (Category 5, 6, 7). Understandable explanations of data testing, including, continuity, pair-reversal, NEXT, ACR, skew, and power-sum tests. Test documentation. Certification of drops. Customer or municipal inspection. Lesson 7 Outside Plant Installations. Outdoor cables. Network distance limitations. Inside/outside transition techniques. Surge and lightning protection. Aerial runs. Underground runs. The use of fiber for long runs. Cable splicing and tagging. Lesson 8 Hybrid Copper/Fiber Networks. The use of fiber backbones and copper for the last 100 meters. Campus hybrid networks. Fiber/copper transitions. Sample network structures. Vertical versus horizontal backbones. Problem areas. Lesson 9 Data Transmission over Telephone Lines. Telephone system network structure. Switched versus routed networks. The limitations of old-style phone wires. Modems. Applications of data-over-phone technology. Future developments. The effects of the internet on new telephone installations. Lesson 10 ISDN & T1 Digital Phone Lines. Explanation of what digital phone lines are, how they differ from standard (analog) lines, how the phone companies handle digital lines, etc. Installation and operation of ISDN, T1, ADSL, other digital circuits. Lesson 11 The Internet & Intranets. What the internet is, how it developed, how it works. TCP/IP protocols. Limitations and capabilities. Using the net to turn LANs into WANs - or intranets. Dealing with ISPs to set up intranets. Internet-to-LAN transitions. Lesson 12 The Datacom Business. How the data communications business differs from electrical construction. Estimating, bidding, RFPs, negotiating, training, certification, oversight, project management, purchasing, obtaining trained workers. Registration For The ISU/EC DATA COMMUNICATION INSTALLATIONS Course: Name ________________________________ Company______________________________ Address ______________________________ City ________________State _______________Zip _________________ Phone _______________________________ Fax_______________________________ The registration fee of $375.00 will be handled as follows: ___ Enclosed is a check payable to Iowa State University ___ VISA ___ MasterCard ___ Discover Exp. Date__________ Card #______________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ Mail or fax this completed form and registration fee to: Carole Seifert Iowa State University 102 Scheman Building Ames, Iowa 50011 Fax: (515)294-6223 COMMON QUESTIONS: Is this a college course? Yes it is. The course is a joint venture of Electrical Contractor magazine and Iowa State University (College of Engineering, Dept. of Continuing Education). Electrical Contractor magazine is covering the course in a twelve-part series of articles. How Does The Course Work? This course is conducted completely by correspondence. You will get all of your lessons by US mail, along with the textbook and exercises, about two weeks after you register. (The cost of the textbook is included in the course fee.) After you complete your lessons, send them back to the instructor. He will grade your papers and send you the results. How Long Does It Take? There are twelve lessons in the course, and most students spend between two and six hours on each lesson. However, how quickly you complete the course depends on you. Do I Get Some Type Of Credit? When you complete the course, you will receive a certificate of completion from Iowa State University, along with 6 Continuing Education Units (CEUs). All segments of the course must be completed to gain the CEU credit for the series; partial credit will not be awarded. The credits will be permanently recorded by the Department of Extended and Continuing Education. Each person who earns credit will receive a certificate of completion from Iowa State University. Is There Any Time Limit? Yes, all course work must be completed by April 1, 1999. Are There Prerequisites? There are no prerequisites for this course, although a general understanding of electricity is assumed. Can I get more information? Sure. For registration questions call Carole Seifert at 515/294-6229. For course content questions call Paul Rosenberg at 312/409-2992. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #34 ***************************** Issue 34/35 mailed out of sequence; issue 35 appears BEFORE issue 34 in this archive. Issue 36 will follow next. From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 5 11:44:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA06934; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:44:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803051644.LAA06934@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #36 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Mar 98 11:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Theatre to 'Hang Up' Phones (Neil Taylor) Great News (John Cropper) Pacific Bell Fails at Customer Service (Michael D. Maxfield) 877 Opening Delayed (Judith Oppenheimer) Telecards Bring Great Convenience, Some Danger (Tad Cook) BCR Group Exploring Westel Ownership Options (Colin R. Leech) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 17:13:58 +0800 From: Neil Taylor Subject: Theatre to 'Hang Up' Phones The following story came from Hong Kong's South China Morning Post this week. I wonder if any Digest readers have a solution to the problem? Tuesday March 3 1998 Theatre to 'hang up' phones OLIVER POOLE A leading theatre plans to discourage mobile phone users after a Shakespearean actress ridiculed an audience at the end of a performance for endless "beeping". The Academy for Performing Arts says following the outburst at Saturday's performance of Othello, theatre-goers would be encouraged to hand in mobile phones and pagers at the cloakroom. "If we see people with a mobile phone or camera we will ask them to check them in," customer services manager Kathy Liang said. The move comes after British actress Maureen Beattie complained that constant ringing had ruined a performance of Othello. She made an impassioned plea after the final curtain call for people to switch them off in future. Beattie, in Hong Kong with the British-based Royal National Theatre, said she was amazed by the reception her outburst had received. "Everyone cheered. I could not get them to stop." About six calls throughout the performance had undermined the atmosphere, she said. "One went off at the most poignant moment when Othello lifts up the dead Desdemona. You could hear a pin drop. Then it started ringing." I was at the show, and the phone calls got so bad that at one point, half the audience turned round to say "shut the *&^% up". There were a lot more than six calls, but I guess the players couldn't hear them as well as the audience could. Phones have become a serious problem in Hong Kong, with every play, concert or movie guaranteed interuptions by anti-social individuals who cannot understand how obnoxious they're being. There must be a solution to this - New York or Chicago must have the same problem. Is there a low-cost solution that can block signals from reaching an auditorium, but not interfere with regular users outside? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know that in Chicago, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra has banned the use of cellular phones and pagers in the auditorium itself during performances. I think Lyric Opera has done likewise. Patrons are strongly discouraged from taking any form of communication device into the auditorium, and are asked to leave the hall if they receive even a single 'beep' during a performance. I like that. It is really too bad that people cannot go for a couple hours without receiving a phone call or having the ability to immed- iatly place a call (without having to walk outside to do it.) PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Cropper From: John Cropper Subject: Great News Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 04:57:00 -0500 Bulk mailing. Please add this 800 number to your "please *do call* (from a phone booth somewhere) list", and redistribute liberally. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: jj@hotmail.com To: jj@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 00:53 Subject: great news >IS THIS FOR YOU? > >If you answer " yes" to any of these questions then this >business is definitely for you: > >1. Do you already have a home office in place? (Personal >computer, fax capabilities, answering machine, etc.) > >2. Do you have 5 - 10 hours per week to commit toward > building your own part-time (or full-time) business? > >3. Would you be able to read from a script, clearly, and with > enthusiasm, a 2 - 3 minute introduction of our products? > (NO "cold calling " is required. Our prospects will call you.) > >4. With our system, on average, every 15 calls you make will > generate a sale that pays you a commission of in excess of $1,000. > Can you make that many calls per week? (Per day?) > >We're looking for a few quality people with the work ethic >necessary to generate a cash- flow for themselves of >$2,000 - $5,000 per week, > with the intent to increase that to over 5-figures per month, >in as little as six months. Someone who can intelligibly read a short >script to our qualified leads, and then turn the interested prospects >over to our electronic sales medium. You will not be required to >do any selling. > >If you have the self-discipline to ignore the TV for a couple of hours >per day, and if you're looking for a legitimate home-based business >opportunity, ( that IS NOT multi-level marketing or a chain letter >scheme), then please call our toll-free number: >1-800 584 0748 >Leave a message; we will get right back to you. > >You have nothing to lose, there's no risk involved, and you may be >qualified to earn thousands of extra dollars per month. > >Prosperous regards, > >Rod > >P.S. A home office is not a prerequisite, yet it will greatly reduce your start-up costs. Serious inquires only. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps readers will want to show Rod what those 'start up costs' can be like. Phone bills for an 800 number can really be hellish. ... By all means, leave messages ... lots of them. Five or six thousand dollars per week on the Internet ... geeze, what kind of fools do they take us for? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:06:37 -0800 Subject: Pacific Bell Fails at Customer Service Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) Pat, I hope you don't mind the rather frank opinionizing. Yesterday, I was prepared to write this piece stating how PacBell had solved a problem rather quickly. I was even prepared to do the same this morning, with the slight modification that they had ATTEMPTED to solve a problem rather quickly. After two dealings with 611 repair representatives this evening (Tuesday), this piece has done an about face, and despite the one intelligent 611 repair rep I was in contact with last night (female at that), I drew the shorter straw twice this evening and ended up with two droids (male at that ... I guess this kind of dumps on the stereotypes some folks may still hold.) The following is probably best viewed as a LOG. I started it earlier today in order to document the problem I was having and the route PB chose to try to resolve it. [BTW, Why am I now getting a REORDER dial tone on my lines? I DON'T HAVE THREE WAY CALLING!] --------------------------------------------------------------- DOCUMENTATION OF FAULTY TELEPHONE SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------- Problem appeared between Friday-PM, February 20 1998 and Monday-AM, February 23 1998. Prior to that Monday, a problem which may have been the same, appeared occasionally, but did not persist for hours or days like the current problem. Since February 23, the problem occurs at all times of the day and night. The lines involved in my research to eliminate the chance of the problem originating with local subscriber equipment or lines: [location a - MORAGA] 376-5xxx modem 1 (as well as aural monitoring) 376-8xxx modem 2 (and tested with modem 1 as well, and aural) 631-0xxx aural monitoring [location b - CONCORD] 676-2xx5 modem 3 676-3xxx modem 4 (and tested with modem 3 as well) 676-2xx3 aural, while forwarded to PacBell Message Center Calls originating from any of the location B (Concord) numbers dialing into any of the location A (Moraga) numbers have absolutely no problems at all. Calls originating from any of the location A (Moraga) numbers dialing into any of the location B (Concord) numbers are subject to the problem. Modem usage at 9600 baud (V32) on calls originating in Moraga is a senseless waste of time, with random characters appearing on screen at a rate so intense, that even trying to issue a simple three letter operating system command is turned into a game of "Beat-The-Clock" with the contestant inevitably losing. Modem usage at 2400 baud (V.22bis) is nearly as bad as trying to use 9600 baud. The only benefit is that the garbage characters don't come across the screen as fast. Any session at this baud rate is still mostly useless. I also ran the modems in reverse mode, with the originating modem using the answer protocol, and the terminating modem using the originate mode. This did nothing to solve the problem. The problem is NOT, in my opinion, what is commonly refered to as "line noise", although it's appearance on the screen is the same. When dialing up one of lines in Concord, from one of the lines in Moraga, and putting the ear to the receiver, one does not hear pops and clicks on the line, but one does hear defects in the audio coming down the line. The line itself doesn't sound scratchy, but at times the audio itself exhibits a quality which can at best be described as scratchy. This "scratchy" sound can be detected with the ear on calls where the location B (Concord) line is answered by modem, and when the location B call is forwarded to the PacBell Message Center. (This kind of rules out the problem being in any wiring at location B, that is, if the originating direction doesn't already clue one in to where the problem doesn't exist.) On Monday evening, March 2, 1998, I contacted Pacific Telephone Repair Services at 611 with regard to this problem. I explained the above to Paula, the service representative who answered, and she seemed to understand the problem and told me she would call me back in a few minutes. About fifteen minutes later, I did receive a call back from her and she asked me to try making the connection again and they could monitor it, then she would call me back. I did try the call again, and WOW!!! It appeared to be fixed. No "line noise" appeared on my screen. When Paula called back, she told me that the tech "busied out" some of the lines. I asked if she meant the circuits heading out of the Moraga switch to Concord and she said that was what she meant. (She was trying not to talk too technical not knowing how much I would understand.) Well, I thanked her and we said our good-byes and hung up. Just to make sure I wasn't dreaming, I tapped the stone three times ... I originated a 9600 connection between 376-xxx and 676-xxxx and left it up for about a half an hour letting it sit idle. By the time I disconnected it, there had not been a single character of garbage over the circuit. (This was a non-EC connection. Straight 9600, no MNP or anything else. RAW modem.) But, come Tuesday (Mar 3) morning around 7 am, the beast was back. It has been there the entire day, and while there have been brief periods (about 8 minutes max) where there hasn't been garbage coming across, it is for the most part, back in full force. SERVICE BY THE NUMBERS - I can follow a Q/A chart too. ----------------------------------------------------- - DROID #1 - (and an A-HOLE) At 7:30 PM on Tuesday, March 3, I called 611 repair once again. I explained the problem to the representative answering. He told me that my line is a voice grade line and is not guranteed for data communications. I told him that this problem is audible when using the line(S) in voice as well. He told me he could test *my* lines. I told him that the problem is not with *my* lines, but between PacBell switches. He insisted that any problem would be with my line and not at the phone company. Not wishing to go around in circles any further, I asked to speak to a supervisor. He said he would connect me, and then hung up! (Of course, the droid had not mentioned his name) - DROID #2 - I redialed 611 and when the representative answered, I promptly asked for a supervisor. He told me that a supervisor would have to call me back, or else I would be waiting on the line for up to 30 minutes. I decided to give this guy a chance, explained the situation again, and am allowing him to "test" the lines. (I hope that means "contact a tech") I told him that when he tests the line, if it is of any importance, I currently have an established circuit (gave him the originating and destination numbers) which is exhibiting this problem "right now" if it is of any help in tracing it out. He informed me that he would call me back in about 15 minutes. (that was 1/2 hour ago, and counting) - dilly dally blather - (while we wait for the droid to call me back) Think I'm being too harsh on the two 611 reps by calling them droids? In my opinion, I don't think so. They were strictly By_The_Book with regard to trying to find out information from me, and I wanted to cut to the chase, having gone through this entire explanation once, then twice before in a period of 24 hours. Once he (they) had the information, the next scripted line was "We will test your lines." No amount of protestation could get it through the droid's head that the problem WAS NOT MY LINE!!! I've had better luck getting a telemarketer to vary from a script than I was with these droids. I'm sure these droids could do equally as fine on a 911 line delivering a baby by the checklist method. "The cord is wrapped around the neck!"... "Impossible. You must be having visual difficulties due to the stress of the situation. Just have her keep pushing." It's now been an hour since I called 611 and was told to wait for them to call back. Over the last 20 minutes, I've been playing around with my own tests. Down as low as 2400 baud, the problem still persists. It does not appear to be present at 1200 baud, which I have up right now and waiting. (phase problem?) If some telco tech happens to read this and knows where the hell to go to get something done right, please feel free to forward this post to the powers that be. "The problem is in the circuits outbound between the Moraga (376/631) switching office and the Concord (676) switching office. The problem (at this time) does NOT show up in calls out of Moraga to other locations which the complaintant regularly calls. (Walnut Creek, Alameda)" It's now 8:50 pm. Not a peep back from 611 repair. I suspect droid #1 and droid #2 got together and they decided to blow me off. Time for this to hit the net. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9:25pm - submitted to comp.dcom.telecom (still no call back) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is very hard sometimes to convince repair clerks to go further than the 'test your line' stage. This is I suspect because the vast majority of their calls do come from people whose knowledge of the situation is so poor that a great deal of time is wasted trying to explain simple things. Still, there ought to be a way for intelligent, telecom-saavy people to get through to someone to handle more sophisticated problems. Flashback to the late 1960's: I frequently called one person late at night to chat although sometimes during the day as well. During the day there was never any problem reaching them, but late at night at least three out of four dialing attenpts met with a loud, raucus noise from the switch (an old crossbar type office) after dialing. This noise sounded much like a railroad train going past (sort of like the *really old* stepper switches when they got out of alignment) and it would never go away. I finally caught on to the fact that I could put that line on hold, redial the call on my second line and get through okay, then release the first line. After a few calls to repair I finally got someone interested in listening to me. He gave me a direct number and said the next time it happened to keep the line on hold and call his number; he would then go in on my line from the frames and look at it there. When it happened again, I did just that. He called me back later to say 'the first selected trunk' in a group of several trunks between my CO and the CO I was calling was bad. The reason this always happened to me at night and never happened to me in the daytime was because while it did happen in the daytime also, the likelyhood of seizing the first trunk in the group was very little. Calls between those two central offices went on all the time, and the first trunk was almost constantly in use; one seizure followed another instantly. But any person who got it would be unable to use it. After hearing the noise they would abandon it; hang up and dial over. As soon as they would hang up, someone else would grab that same trunk with the same results. This would force the first caller to grab another trunk in the group which was working okay. The second caller would abandon the bad trunk and a third caller would seize it instantly, etc. No one single caller ever got it more than once; when they did they considered it just a fluke and dialed over again. But at night when traffic was much slower, the likelyhood of the same person always getting the first trunk in the group was much higher, which is what was happening to me. Maybe on my third or fourth dialing attempt someone else in the neighborhood just happened to make a call at that time of night also, and for the mere instant that is required in these things my call got hunted to the second trunk, thus I got through. Likewise by 'holding it up' and dialing on my second line I would naturally get around it also. He thanked me for my attention to it and said it would be repaired that day, which it was. They may find the same thing in your case. One or two circuits between those CO's is really rotted out. Most of the time some voice caller gets on there and lives with it; you hit that circuit with your modem and can go nowhere. I mentioned here a week ago that a person I assist with phone stuff had all his lines go out. For a period of about a month before that, several people in the same area had been complaining about the excessive amount of noise on the line; sometimes a dead short to ground. Telco kept swapping pairs in the cable much like a game of musical chairs, where there are never quite enough chairs to go around and someone always gets left out. Jim (my associate) would get his lines cleaned up nicely one day, and the next day they would be bad again, because some other tech had come out to fix the lines for the business down the street, etc. They were always one or two good pairs short of what was needed. Finally one day some 'cable guys' came out from telco and ran a whole new 'overhead' cable from a multiple down the street. They cut out the underground cable completely which they said had 'apparently' been damaged over the years by rain, digging in the street, etc. Things have been fine since. As a humorous sidenote, three of the four lines in Jim's office are local, 847 numbers. The fourth is a 'foreign exchange' line on the Chicago 773 area code. But it is from AT&T rather than Ameritech, and they call it a 'virtual circuit'. No matter, the same cable brings it in the building also. Calls for repair on that line always brings the same guy out to work on it; the other three will have different people involved. The guy doing the 773 work is an Ameritech guy also, but he is *not supposed to say that* when he is here; he is supposed to say he is from AT&T. :) One day I kidded him saying 'did you forget to slip the AT&T patch on your shirt pocket to cover up the Ameritech patch before you came in?' He laughed and said 'oh, you knew about that, huh?' I said I knew that AT&T had made an issue out of it with Ameritech when they contracted with Ameritech to do their repairs in this area. AT&T wanted the customers to think they were actually handling it all themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 13:53:38 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: 877 Opening Delayed On Tuesday, March 3, 1998, Don Werner - SNAC (SMS/800 Number Administration Committee) Liaison to the FCC and Susan Miller, ATIS Vice President and General Counsel, were notified by the staff of the FCC's Network Services Division that it is unlikely that the 877 toll free resource will be approved by the FCC for opening on April 5, 1998. This is due largely to the lack of an FCC Order resolving the toll free vanity number matter pending at the FCC. It is unclear, at this time, how long the delay will last, but it was suggested that the delay could be as long as one to two months. Company positions, concerns, and questions regarding this delay are urged to be directed to the Common Carrier Bureau at the FCC. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Subject: Telecards Bring Great Convenience, Some Danger Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:29:22 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Telecards Bring Great Convenience, Some Danger By Putsata Reang, The Seattle Times Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 3--The latest piece of plastic that people are wedging into their wallets is a card that provides a way to call long-distance from pay phones without ever having to deposit a coin. "Telecards" -- prepaid telephone cards -- are feeding a growing demand for a convenient, cheaper alternative to make long-distance calls. Sales of the cards are exploding, but with the growth come some warnings. Fly-by-night companies have folded, leaving consumers and even some businesses in the lurch. The cards work like this: Companies such as 7-Eleven or Sprint buy blocks of time from phone companies, then sell the time to consumers, usually in 15- or 30-minute increments, collecting their profits through surcharges or per-minute rates that are higher than they pay for the time. The cards are popular among college students, migrant workers, traveling professionals, vacationers and people who can't make long-distance calls from home phones, largely because they can't get credit or have bad credit. Sales of the cards topped $2 billion last year, up from $12 million in 1992. "It's explosive," said Vince Porteous, owner and director of Gazelle Telecard, one of the first companies in Seattle to issue the prepaid cards. But with the growth have come growing pains. Because the industry is new and start-up costs are low, would-be entrepreneurs can enter the business for as little as $1,000. It's easy to get snared by bogus offers. Industry watchdog groups say some companies start prepaid phone-card businesses with the sole intent of shutting down, leaving hundreds of consumers with worthless cards. "It's a black eye for the industry," said John Bishop, sales manager at Electric Lightwave, a Northwest wholesale distributor of long-distance time. "It's a very good business to be in. The only problem is that there are some people abusing it." Per-minute rates can be low and are often cheaper than standard domestic calling rates. The average phone-card rate is 33 cents a minute, compared with 40 cents to 85 cents a minute for domestic long-distance. But consumers should be wary of very low rates, experts say, and watch for added surcharges, sometimes $2 or more, that might be tacked onto each call. Prices under 20 cents a minute should raise red flags, experts say. "Consumers are going after the lowest price," Bishop said. "They aren't going for, `Is this card going to be working next week?"' The biggest problem occurs when someone tries to use a card and gets a constant busy signal or a message saying that service has been disconnected. This happens when the phone-card company fails to pay its long-distance carrier, which in turn disconnects the service, leaving consumers with worthless cards. As a result, state regulation of the industry is increasing. "More and more states are beginning to wake up and are tired of getting calls from consumers," said Mark Keene, director of consumer affairs for the International Telecard Association, an industry group. Florida took the lead in passing what so far are the strongest regulations of the industry. Telecard companies doing business there must register with the state, provide price lists, include a 24-hour toll-free customer-service number and offer refunds or replacements if the cards don't work. The law also requires that the cards work 95 percent of the time. Washington has no special laws regulating the sale of phone cards. Officials at the state Attorney General's Office say there have been few complaints here. Telecard enterprises first appeared in the 1970s in Italy, where phone companies began offering them to deter vandalism at pay phones. The first cards in the U.S. showed up in 1992 in states including Florida and Massachusetts. Phone giants such as Sprint, MCI and AT&T were some of the first to offer the cards. US West kicked off its first prepaid-calling-card campaign over the 1997 holiday season. The company is planning an aggressive marketing campaign to compete head-to-head with many of the telecards sold at mom-and-pop type businesses. "Right now we're getting our campaign in place to sell the product on every street corner in Seattle," said Scott Russell, US West marketing director. Local companies are catching on. Costco, known for selling everything in large quantities, started offering long-distance service in bulk with its 120-minute prepaid calling cards for $19.99, about 16 cents a minute. Costco is experimenting with a 500-minute card for $75, about 15 cents a minute. Business has grown by about 25 percent to 30 percent in two years, Costco President Jim Sinegal said. Prepaid cards spell "opportunity" in bold print for companies selling the cards as a promotional product for other companies to give away. Companies such as International Telecom offers custom-designed cards with company logos. Rather than offering the stand-by T-shirts and caps, which may wind up in the backs of closets, calling cards have real value, said Thomas Pleas, product manager for International Telecom. "They get a pocket-sized billboard in their wallet," Pleas said. Porteous markets his cards to companies such as Alaska Airlines, talk-radio station KVI-AM and J.F. Henry, who give away the cards to promote their businesses. ------------------------------ From: ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) Subject: BCR Group Exploring Westel Ownership Options Date: 4 Mar 1998 08:47:44 GMT Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada Downloaded from Canada NewsWire at http://www.newswire.ca/ BCR GROUP EXPLORING WESTEL OWNERSHIP OPTIONS VANCOUVER, Feb. 9 /CNW/ - British Columbia Railway Company (BCRC) has retained Nesbitt Burns Inc. to help assess strategic options for its wholly owned subsidiary, Westel Telecommunications Ltd. BCR Group President and Chief Executive Officer Paul McElligott says the conversion of BC Rail's former communications and signals department into a competitive, stand-alone long distance provider has been ``extremely successful.'' ``The time has now come for Westel to move to its next stage of development,'' he said, ``but in order to do so, we need to look at other available options for growth, including a joint venture, a merger or sale of equity to a qualified investor.'' The convergence of telephone, cable, interactive data and other emerging telecommunications services has pointed up the need for additional investment. ``The industry has become extremely competitive,'' McElligott said. ``Increasingly complex technology requires significant additional capital and a larger presence in the marketplace.'' McElligott said the decision to explore strategic options is a corporate initiative, for the benefit of both BCRC and Westel, which has been approved by the BCRC Board of Directors on behalf of the company's sole shareholder, the Government of B.C. ``There appear to be a number of options available to Westel,'' he said. ``Should any come to fruition, it can only result in significantly expanded career growth and job opportunities for Westel employees, as well as an enhanced range of services for the company's growing base of small business and residential customers.'' As well as acting as brokers and overall advisers, Nesbitt Burns Inc. will assist in structuring the process and act as the principal link between British Columbia Railway Company, and prospective investors. Among other functions, Nesbitt Burns will screen and provide relevant information to qualified investors, evaluate proposals as they are received and assist in negotiations and due diligence matters. Westel began operation in 1993, following partial deregulation of the long-distance telecommunications industry. It was based on the sale of surplus capacity in the railways existing, province-wide microwave telecommunications network. The company's revenues have grown from $10 million in its first full year of operation to an anticipated $49 million in 1997. It has a small but profitable share of British Columbia's long-distance voice and data market. Background information - Westel Telecommunications Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------- - The forerunner of BC Rail, Pacific Great Eastern Railway, established its own microwave radio network in 1956, to provide telecommunications services to the operating railway and Westcoast Energy. As the railway developed, additional capacity was contracted to other customers, notably provincial and federal government departments and some forest companies. - Following partial deregulation of the telecommunications industry in 1992, Westel was created as a wholly owned subsidiary of British Columbia Railway Company and took over the operating railways former telecommunications department and assets. - Westel owns and operates the second largest telecommunications network in B.C., extending from Vancouver to Fort Nelson and throughout the province. The company has invested more than $25 million in expanding and digitizing the network over the past four years. - Unlike other major telecommunications companies operating in B.C., Westel is the only B.C.-owned and operated full-service telecommunications company. - Since its formation in 1993, the company has established itself as a strong competitive force in the B.C. long-distance market. It enjoys a growing reputation for superior customer service, innovative product design and excellent technical support. - Services offered include business and residential long-distance telephone, prepaid phone cards, telecommunications services to other long distance companies and the advanced WestNet data communications solutions product. Westel has a strong presence in the B.C. Internet market, providing telecommunications facilities for a number of B.C. Internet companies. - Westel has a customer base of nearly 40,000 subscribers. Major customers include Westcoast Energy, B.C. Real Estate Association, B.C. Chamber of Commerce and BC Rail. Westel employs more than 200 people in 18 locations throughout the province. - Like its parent company, British Columbia Railway, Westel is self-sufficient and operates without government subsidy or assistance. - Nesbitt Burns Inc. (NBI) has been retained to provide financial counsel to both BCRC and the team which will manage the strategic option evaluation process. NBI has advised BCRC on previous occasions and has extensive experience in raising capital for telecommunications companies. NBI will contact prospective strategic partners, provide information to qualified inquirers, assist management in evaluating opportunities and assist with any due diligence procedures leading to a transaction. Key contacts at NBI are: Peter Powell, Senior Vice-President (604) 443-1448 Janet Griffin, Vice-President & Director (416) 359-6569 Graeme Falkowsky, Vice-President- Investment Banking (604) 443-1433 - A number of strategic options are available to Westel. They include the following possibilities: Joint Venture Merger Sale of equity and other mutually acceptable options that may become apparent when prospective investors needs or preferences become known. For further information: Barrie Wall, Director, Corporate Communications, BCR Group of Companies, (604) 986-2012 This press release concerns more than one organization. #### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice. #### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware. #### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #36 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 12 23:49:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA21736; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:49:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:49:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803130449.XAA21736@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #37 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Mar 98 23:49:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 37 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Well, it Happened Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) Book Review: "Web Video Complete", Martin Nemzow (Rob Slade) House Passes Measure to Punish Cellular Eavesdropping (J.Norton) Re: 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! (Gail M. Hall) A Plague of Phone Books (James Bellaire) Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: XML: Principles, Tools (Rob Slade) "Soft" Dial Tone in USWEST Land (Michael F. March) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:13:51 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Well, it Happened Again ... But this time I knew what to do ... sort of. And it was not a total crash with the loss of Windows, but just a series of very flaky things happening all at once or a few hours apart, such as the complete loss of a terminal program for dialing out to the net, a loss of several items on the desktop which were recovered by making new shortcuts for them, etc. My one favorite terminal program is still sickly; for whatever reason when re-installing the modem (after Windows lost track of it) Windows insisted it had to be in Com 4; rather than where it had been earlier. Well okay, so I go to the terminal program I like (because I can send faxes with it easily) called 'QL2FAX' (remember that one from the Sprint Free Modem days?) and it refuses to accept Com 4 as a valid place for the modem, at least in DOS. When I run it from the Windows DOS prompt however, it sort of accepts Com 4 at least to where it starts to dial out, and then the screen goes blank, although you can hear the modem noise in the background. Nothing recovers the screen except a complete reboot. If I start out in DOS to investigate this problem, QL2FAX begins right away telling me that 'cannot access port 4, it is busy.' And although in the setup I find Com 4 as the place where it is, it I try to *put it in 4 myself later on*, it once again claims it is invalid. Okay, so I can use another terminal program easily enough, but then 'Quick Launch' -- the little icons on the left side of the task bar at the bottom all managed to get lost. They got recovered only when I completely reloaded Internet Explorer 4.0, which then got Netscape very annoyed at no longer being the 'default browser'. Then Internet Explorer said 'if I do not get to be default, you will be in BIG TROUBLE. A reload of America Online at that point (because it knew nothing about where to find the modem any longer) took care of that because it wiped out IE-4 entirely and put its very own version of IE-3 there instead. Reloading 4.0 cured that after a few small 'minor' adjustments (ha-ha, nothing is minor around here it seems). Monday morning beginning about 3:00 AM the worst winter storm in more than a decade it is claimed hit the Chicago area among other places. All winter long here, we have been praising and worshipping the great god 'El Nino' for the warmth and mild conditions. True, the California People had yet another mudslide and other nasty things happen to them as a result of El Nino, but we were getting along just fine, thank you. Mother Nature kicked in last Monday morning to show she is still boss, and we wound up with six to ten inches of snow, winds of 40 miles per hour during it, power and telephone lines down all over the area, and lots more grief. Power in Skokie was out from 5:57 AM Monday morning until a bit past 1:00 AM Tuesday morning, or about 19 hours total. Some parts of Chicago remained out of power for more than two days. In total, Edison said 275,000 households and businesses were affected. When the telephone lines got reconnected there were constant 'no circuit' conditions for another day and a half or so. Remembering what IE-4 said about being in BIG TROUBLE if I ever dared again to erase or move its icons around or delete any of its shortcuts and links, etc, I was fortunate to get a Ditto 'Max' tape backup unit which will hold many gigs of stuff. I installed it without incident and did a full backup last night which took about four hours. I also managed to obtain from the same source a CD ROM of Windows OSR-2, and another diskette used to boot the computer. I am beginning to think this is a bad joke of some kind; I feel like I am playing the role of the straight man in a long running comedy. At this point I guess things are once again runnng as well as they ever will. The only good thing that has happened this week was that I managed to find a freeware copy of a little piano keyboard which plays on the keys of the computer. With a little bit of effort I got it installed and had a friend of mine who plays quite well sit down and record a few things for me. Anyway, that is where I have been *this week*; let's start over once again. If you have a sound card -- preferably a Sound Blaster or better -- and you would like a copy of a transcription he did of Leon Boellman's 'Tocatta From the Gothic Suite' complete with lots of bells, whistles and other sound effects I will send out 'gothic.mid' to you. Maybe I will put it on a web page or something. FYI, Boellman was a nineteenth century organist/composer in France. PAT ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:01:37 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Web Video Complete", Martin Nemzow Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWBVDCM.RVW 971211 "Web Video Complete", Martin Nemzow, 1998, U$54.95, 0-07-046404-9 %A Martin Nemzow %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-046404-9 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$54.95 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 607 p. + CD-ROM %T "Web Video Complete" Although the Web is hot, a more accurate title might be "Net Video Complete," or even "Computer Video Complete." Not limited to production of video for Web pages, this book really emphasizes video conferencing and other computer uses of video technology. After a brief introduction in chapter one, chapter two looks at hardware. I am part of the "Grandparent market" that Nemzow frequently cites, and was very interested in the recommendations for different types of cameras, video capture cards, sound cards, and so forth. This book is not quite as helpful as, say, Cheryl Kirk's overview of "The Internet Phone Connection" (cf. BKINPHCN.RVW), but it does cover a very large field, and does require that a greater variety of technologies and peripherals be dealt with. There was not as much critical evaluation of specific hardware as I would have wanted to see, and I'm sure that business users would be just as interested in this level of detail. Chapter three looks at software. However, it seems to deal less with actual video software than with network protocols, network configuration, operating system drivers, and network resources. There is a rather mixed bag of topics as we stroll from dynamic IP address allocation to Four11 to firewalls to CU-SeeMe. Again, chapter four, looking at compatibility, deals only briefly with actual video conferencing systems, and at much greater length with modem standards, ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network), video standards, and audio and video storage formats. Video construction techniques, in chapter five, is even more of a mixed bag. The text touches on planning, story technique, Web page design, scripting, lighting, analogue to digital conversion, video production software, special effects, graphics, soundtracks, compression, file transfers, and even a little HTML (HyperText Markup Language). This seems at odds with some of the earlier emphasis on personal and business video conferencing, and more closely related to the preparation of video clips for the Web, but, at the same time, some of the production is far beyond what Web pages would require. Chapter six, on Web video plumbing, looks at bandwidth and other networking issues, but does so primarily from the perspective of the server, ignoring the consumer, and the fact that regardless of how much backbone bandwidth you may have, a browse is only as fast as its slowest routing link. Back to video conferencing, in chapter seven, with thorny issues such as pornography, legal jeopardy, and how much noise your laser printer makes. Chapter eight goes back to Web video online, discussing etiquette, pornography, HTML, Web cams, streaming multimedia, backups, video conferencing security, Internet telephony security, Web site security, legal problems, troubleshooting, and health care. Chapter nine describes the contents of the CD-ROM. There is a great deal of information is this book, and much of it is valuable. There are, however, two major problems. The first is that the book can't seem to decide who the target audience is: the professional videographer, the TCP/IP enthusiast, the business video conference organizer, or the home hobbyist. The second is that the organization is rudimentary at best, and finding specific information is difficult. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWBVDCM.RVW 971211 ------------------------------ From: jnorton@vol.com Subject: House Passes Measure to Punish Cellular Eavesdropping Date: 12 Mar 1998 21:39:29 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com House passes measure to punish eavesdropping on cellular phone calls By Rob Wells Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House decisively passed a measure Thursday to make it illegal for people to use scanners to intentionally eavesdrop on cellular phone calls. By a 414-1 vote, the House approved a bill that would prohibit people from modifying scanners to "intentionally intercept or divulge the content of radio communications." The bill, which would clarify and expand current prohibitions, would also eliminate the current $2,000 cap on penalties for violations. The bill arose after a Florida couple used a scanner to listen and tape-record a 1996 cellular telephone conversation that Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, was having with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. "Little did I know that my words and my expressions were being recorded and end up as part of public relations campaign to try to destroy the speaker," Boehner, No. 4 in the GOP leadership, said during House debate. The tape made its way from Florida to the House ethics committee and was published by {The New York Times}. "I speak from personal experience about the outrage and sense of powerlessness one feels when they learn that their expectation of privacy has been destroyed," Boehner said. In addition to restrictions on individuals trying to eavesdrop, the bill would also extend current restrictions on scanner manufacturers to prohibit new machines that would intercept new conversations on the new generation of digital cellular telephones. And it would extend the Federal Communications Commission's ability to investigate and enforce violations. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Bill Tauzin, R-La., said it would expand the right to privacy in the digital age. "We in government ought to do everything we can to protect that expectation of privacy. That is what this bill is about," he said. The Senate has not yet passed a similar bill. ------ The "Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998" is H.R. 2369. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:39:33 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. I have a suggestion for those national ISPs like ATT.NET and a general complaint about figuring out local vs. long distance numbers. When the national ISP has its list of phone numbers for new user signup, instead of making people go through tons of phone numbers, program the configuration software for calling the ISP to ask the users where they live or to enter their telephone number. Then the program should pop up the few phone numbers that are **local** to that number or the **least costly** for that number. This would really help people who don't really know which numbers are local and which numbers are long distance. I too hope that lady gets something off her $3,000 phone bill! Most of those business places have caller ID, don't they?. They could have programmed in a way to warn her that she could have been using a closer number. I'm sorry, but I think AT&T goofed by not programming that setup better. Now for my complaint: I live in an area now which used to be all 216. Not all of 216 is local. Some exchanges are long distance, and some are local. A naive person might *think* that because the area code is 216 it must be local. That's the first complication. Now 216 has been split up, and we also have 330 and 440. Some 330 numbers and 440 numbers are local to some of the 216 exchanges, and some are long distance. We don't have an easy way to find out which is which. We have to dial 1 before any other area code whether or not they are local or long distance. The phone books used to have charts in them where you could look up which numbers (exchanges) were local and which were long distance but not any more! Also, there used to be a way to find out what the area codes for various towns in Ohio are by looking at a listing in the phone book, but now there is only a very, very vague map. If you're not really sure what big city the town you are wondering about is near, you are up a creek. How are we supposed to even know what area codes are for various towns or if they are local or long distance? To add insult to injury, they charge for calling information. We don't even know which information to call if we don't know what area code the place is in. I think they should go back to free information service! Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:25:25 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: A Plague of Phone Books Spring in Indiana - time for the publishers to 'kill a few trees'. In the past two weeks I have received three different phone books, from different publishers - none of them from my LEC (it came last August). Fortunately I like phone books or I would be annoyed at the overkill. Of the three books, Ameritech (LEC for South Bend) seems to be the most complete, with dialing instructions and the usual perpetually out of date NPA map. They even have telephone company contact info for CLEC US Xchange. A nice touch. America's Directory's "Best Book" and McLeodUSA's "Info Indiana" are the runners up. Info Indiana does have good maps, which can be removed from the book (Ameritech's are bound in). The alternate phone books (non-LEC) seem to be heavy on listings, light on other information (dialing plans, international codes, etc). James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://tk.com/telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:01:00 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: XML: Principles, Tools Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKW3JI24.RVW 971210 "World Wide Web Journal: XML: Principles, Tools, and Techniques", Dan Connolly, 1997, 1-56592-349-9, U$29.95/C$42.95 %E Dan Connolly %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-349-9 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$29.95/C$42.95 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 266 p. %S World Wide Web Journal %T "World Wide Web Journal: XML: Principles, Tools, and Techniques" HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is often, and incorrectly, said to be a subset of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). HTML, in fact, is the best known *application* written in SGML, even for those who don't know what SGML, or an SGML application, are. SGML is rather difficult to work with: not necessarily conceptually complex, and certainly no harder to use than a tool of similar flexibility, but definitely time consuming. HTML, on the other hand, even in its most esoteric and Internet-Explorer-specific extensions, is pretty simple. What HTML is not, is flexible. It is a standard set of commands for the display of information over the net, lately being used and misused for other tasks as well. (With greater numbers of people using Web browsers as mail agents and news readers, HTML is starting to be used for formatted mail. We dinosaurs who still keep separate clients for separate applications get a bit irked at this practice. I understand that one regular Usenet poster puts all his postings inside HTML comment tags, so that them young whipper-snappers can't read 'em. But I digress.) Hence XML, the eXtensible Markup Language. XML *is* a subset of SGML, and steers a middle course between the limitations of HTML, and the demands of SGML. XML allows for the creation of new extensions to HTML, within the confines of standard Web documents. This edition of the World Wide Web Journal deals primarily with XML, although there are also reports on MathML, and the Document Object Model (DOM). This edition has a greater than average number of technical papers, all dealing with some aspect of XML. As well as general overviews, these essays touch on CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), the pitfalls of embedded markup, chemical information, medical documents, Perl, the new Lark language, parsers, browsers, and the future. As always, the World Wide Web Journal is at the cutting edge. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKW3JI24.RVW 971210 ------------------------------ From: Michael F. March Subject: "Soft" Dial Tone in USWEST Land Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:08:42 -0700 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Help. I just moved into an apartment in downtown Phoenix that is pre-wired with four pair. Before I moved in, I ordered two phone lines and RDSL. When I moved in, pair number two had "soft" dial tone on it and the rest of the lines were dead. When my first phone line came up three days ago, it came up on pair number one. So I had one fully functional line and one line with "soft" dial tone. My Home Office rep says that the second line or he RDSL service will take a few weeks to install because they have to do on premise wiring. When I ask him about the "soft" dial tone line, he says that he can not find it in his computer and there is NOTHING that I can do to help him. My question is, what can I do to the "soft" dial tone line so I can help USWEST recognize that it a) does exist and b) is in my apartment? Thanks. Michael F. March ------- KB7EXY (yep...a tech) ------ mmarch@mindspring.net MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. ------------------------------- Phoenix Office http://business.mindspring.com -------------------------- (602)707-6000x105 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish you had had given a definition for your expression 'soft' dial tone. That phrase means different things to different people. One common definition is that it is dial tone which is extremely limited in what it can reach; i.e. the telco business office, fire/police, maybe a couple other things. Perhaps you could explain exactly how *you* are using the phrase. What does it do or not do, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #37 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 18 23:22:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA17715; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:22:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:22:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803190422.XAA17715@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #38 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Mar 98 23:22:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 38 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Deluge of Junk E-Mail Disrupts Pacific Bell Internet Service (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Internet in a Nutshell", Valerie Quercia (Rob Slade) Telephone Trickery - 90# (Tal Meta) Memorized Area Codes? Expect More (Monty Solomon) And Toronto's Area Code is ... (adam_adam_adam@hotmail.com) ISDN in Germany (oldbear@arctos.com) AT&T Foreign Language Operator/Card Services (Mark J. Cuccia) Phoning Home From Abroad: You Make the Call (Tad Cook 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Deluge of Junk E-Mail Disrupts Pacific Bell Internet Service Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:14:01 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 13--Marketers and scam artists "spammed" Pacific Bell's Internet service this week with a digital deluge that fouled up e-mail for subscribers, the company confirmed Thursday. The "spammers" disrupted e-mail service for about 175,000 of Pac Bell's Internet customers. The spam spiked late Monday and wasn't fixed until Thursday evening, when Pac Bell doubled its capacity for handling e-mail traffic. Spamming is being called by some experts as the Internet's worst problem. This is the practice of sending out mass mailings, usually advertisements, to thousands or even millions of Internet users simultaneously. A huge influx of the cyber-messages can clog an online service and mail boxes. In the Pacific Bell spam, e-mail traffic ranged from slow for about 75 percent of the company's customers to a virtual dead stop for one in four, or about 44,000 people, officials said. "You might not get an e-mail message for two hours, it might take you an hour to send out e-mail," said Ruben Cota, a vice president with Pacific Southwestern Bell Internet Services. Some delays were even worse, Cota said: "Some people didn't get mail until the next day. Some people weren't even able to send a message." The incidents represents the worst case of spamming ever directed at the phone company's Internet service, which was launched in mid-1996. Pac Bell isn't sure if the spamming was done out of spite or merely aggressive marketing. The company is investigating the origins of the junk-mail messages. "The spamming that caused the impairment of the system was from multiple external sources," Cota said. "The messages were of varying size." If it can track down the companies that serve the individuals who sent out the mail, Pac Bell says it will press the provider to revoke the offender's service. Pacific Bell is hardly alone in being slammed by spam. America Online, CompuServe and other big providers have suffered the problem. "Spamming is not only the biggest consumer complaint, it is also the biggest nightmare and headache for online service providers," said Brian O'Shaugnessy, director of public policy with the Interactive Services Association in Silver Spring, Md. "It causes brownouts, it causes slowdowns, it can cause computers to crash." To be sure, spamming is an economical way to market a service or product. An individual could spend $100 to reach 2 million cyber-customers quickly. But the benefits to marketers of get-rich-quick schemes are outweighed by the problems these practices unleash upon Internet services and customers. "Spam has a very detrimental impact on the Internet," O'Shaugnessy said. Particularly hard hit have been formerly lively online debate forums such as Usenet. "Usenet has become a virtual wasteland because spammers have used that resource for marketing," O'Shaugnessy said. "It has been overrun by Ponzi schemes and pornography." California lawmakers are pondering ways to halt spamming. One proposal by Assemblymembers Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar, and Jim Cuneen, R-Campbell, would allow online service providers to sue a spammer for up to $15,000. AOL recently won a judgment against a spammer. "Spamming is becoming a bigger and bigger problem," Pac Bell spokesman Paul Cohen said. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:11:04 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Internet in a Nutshell", Valerie Quercia Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTNSH.RVW 971230 "Internet in a Nutshell", Valerie Quercia, 1997, 1-56592-323-5, U$19.95/C$28.95 %A Valerie Quercia val@oreilly.com %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-323-5 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$19.95/C$28.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 450 p. %S Nutshell %T "Internet in a Nutshell" The first of the larger, catalogue type of Internet guides was Ed Krol's "The Internet User's Guide and Catalog" (cf. BKKROL.RVW), recently updated with special reference to Windows 95 (cf. BKKROL95.RVW). Krol's work was published by O'Reilly, whose Nutshell series has garnered justifiable praise in both the publishing and computer industries. Quercia, therefore, has large shoes to fill in taking on this title. The Internet, unfortunately, does not appear to be a good candidate for the Nutshell reference format. The Internet is not a single entity, or even a single type of entity, but a complex amalgam of collections of technologies, protocols, applications, products, programs, and services. this does not easily reduce to a quickly accessible set of lists and tables. Quercia has done a decent and serviceable job of producing a general Internet guide, different in style but comparable in scope to Gilster's "Internet Navigator" (cf. BKINTNAV.RVW) or Comer's "The Internet Book" (cf. BKINTBOK.RVW). the strong Web emphasis accurately reflects the large and growing experience of the net by those who are presented primarily with a browser interface. The author's division of the book into parts is reasonable from the user's perspective, although the logic behind some fo the chapter divisions may be less so. Part one consists of the obligatory introductory chapter. Part two takes a detailed look at Web browsers, with chapters on Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. It should be noted, however, that these chapters, and most of the rest of the book, which looks at email, news, and even ftp through the Netscape Communicator and Internet Explorer/Mail/News interfaces, deal with Netscape 4.01 and MSIE (Internet Explorer) 3.02. Since browser development has been extremely rapid of late, those with older, or newer, products may find themselves at a disadvantage. Under the category of "Finding Stuff" in part three, there are chapters on Internet addressing, landmark sites, directories and search engines, finding people, and telnet. All of these topics contain information suitable to the novice or intermediate user. Email and Usenet news are logically listed together in part four. The chapter promoting them seems weak, but it is followed by good advice on strategies and survival, mailing lists, news, Netscape Messenger and Collabra, MSIE Mail, and MSIE News. Files, in part five, are handled quickly but well. There is discussion of file types and extensions, ftp and file transfer, a UNIX ftp command reference, as well as a brief look at file compression and archiving. Part six looks at helpers and plugins for the browser interfaces, first looking at configuring Netscape and MSIE for helper apps, and them briefly looking at plugins and ActiveX controls. Web authoring, in part seven, looks at basic authoring needs, HTML (HyperText Markup Language), colour, characters, and enhancements. Part eight covers IRC (Internet Relay Chat) briefly but reliably, with an overview chapter plus a reference to those commands found in the mIRC program. Given the scope of the Internet, and the relatively small size of this book, something had to be left out. One limitation is the choice of software. Except for WS_FTP and mIRC, everything relies on either Netscape Communicator or MSIE. (Macintosh users are not completely forgotten, and a number of Mac specific points are noted.) In regard to much of the rest of the material, it is well chosen to suit the general needs of the novice or intermediate user, with a smaller number of points that would be of use to advanced Internet denizens. Coverage is quick, but realistic for the non-specialist. It provides a good jumping off point, so long as the reader does not stop there. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINTNSH.RVW 971230 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:15:45 -0500 From: Tal Meta Organization: I am the truth from which you run... Subject: Telephone Trickery - 90# A friend of mine sent me the following inquiry, regarding a "telephone scam" she'd been told about by some of her friends. I was wondering if the folks on the digest could give us both a definitive answer ... > a couple of people i know have forwarded to me a warning about a > telephone scam. supposedly, someone will phone an innocent victim > and pose as an AT&T rep, saying that they are testing the lines, > and asking the person to dial 9, then 0, then #. the warning goes > on to say that this gives the calling party access to the called > party's phone line, and allows them to make long distance calls > charged to the victim. supposedly the person doing this is often > phoning from a local prison. > this sounds like a crock to me. from what i know of the telco > switching system, nothing as simple as a 3-digit code, even if it > contains a non-alphanumeric character, is going to hand over the > use of your line to an outside party. but a couple of friends in > boston have their knickers in a knot over this, and won't listen > to me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:29:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Memorized Area Codes? Expect More http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/069/Memorized_area_codes__Expect_more.htm Memorized area codes? Expect more By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff, 03/10/98 State regulators had egg on their faces yesterday after being told that their newly redrawn 617 and 508 area codes may run out of phone numbers again in three years or less. If the projections are accurate, residents in 617 and 508 will probably have to go through another wrenching area code change in the not-too-distant future. Last year, lawmakers got into a nasty fight over which communities would remain in 617. The latest number crunch raises questions about whether state regulators made the right decision last year when they rejected an alternative area code format that would have kept the 617 and 508 area codes intact. Bell Atlantic had originally predicted the new area codes could last five to eight years, but company officials said heavy demand from competitors for new numbers has thrown those predictions way off already. The company forwarded its latest estimate to state officials in a letter last week. State regulators and competing companies were stunned at Bell Atlantic's new projections, which were released even before the just-redrawn area codes become fully activated on May 1. ''Their numbers don't seem to be very good,'' said Daniel Grabauskas, the state's consumer affairs director. ''We had been promised that these area codes would be good for about five years.'' AT&T spokeswoman Robin Sayre also blamed Bell Atlantic. ''We are outraged that Bell Atlantic has misforecast the need for exchanges,'' she said. ''We're mystified as to how this happened.'' Bell Atlantic said there is no mystery involved. The company, which supervises the distribution of exchange numbers, said that it and its competitors are gobbling up the three-digit exchange numbers to serve business, and to a lesser extent residential, customers at a gold rush pace. Each exchange number represents a block of 10,000 phone numbers. Bell Atlantic said it has requested 10 percent of the new exchange codes in 617 and 508, while its many competitors for primarily local business customers have requested the other 90 percent. The number shortage raises again the thorny issue of what to do about it. In the short term, industry officials plan to meet on April 3 to see if they can reach consensus on ways to conserve phone numbers and, if necessary, kick start the development of additional area codes. Last year the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy approved a plan to carve the 781 and 978 area codes out of the existing 617 and 508 area codes. It rejected an alternative approach, favored by Bell Atlantic, that would have had the new area codes overlay the old ones. That would have avoided the need to keep slicing up area codes by allowing existing customers to keep their area codes and numbers while new customers would get numbers in the new overlaid area codes. ''This situation illustrates why overlays are clearly the better way to add area codes,'' said Thomas DeSisto, executive director-regulatory for Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts. ''Demand is impossible to predict in a competitive environment.'' State regulators rejected that argument last year, largely because it would have required all consumers to dial at least 10 digits on every call, even local ones. The overlay approach would have also meant that neighbors on the same street could have different area codes. Janet Besser, chairwoman of the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy, said she had no regrets about the agency's decision last year. Besser acknowledged that Bell Atlantic had told her agency that a number shortage could develop in three years. She also said she had no reason to disbelieve Bell Atlantic's new projections. George Dean, the top utility regulator working for Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, said he was hopeful that new technologies could distribute phone numbers more efficiently and prolong the life of the existing area codes. But Besser said it is unlikely the new technology will become available before mid-1999, too late to help deal with the current situation. She said her agency will scrutinize Bell Atlantic's numbers carefully. ''We will not be moving ahead with new area codes unless they are absolutely needed,'' she said. This story ran on page B01 of the Boston Globe on 03/10/98. Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company. ------------------------------ From: adam_adam_adam@hotmail.com Subject: And Toronto's Area code is ... Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:27:58 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Bell Canada is set to announce Toronto's new area code the announcement of the code has been delayed since the orignal plans to overlay the "416" area code have been cancelled. Inside a cellular area code is being introduced. All cellular, PCS, pagers etc within the 416 area code will move to the new area code. As this is Canada not the US we do not have to follow FCC we have the CRTC. I have found out that the CRTC has agreed to this in principle, in the long run it will benefit the city. No forced 10-digit dialing : ). However cell phones who call others who are not on cell phones will require 10-digit local dialing. This is also good since the cell companies are hogging up all the numbers. This will free up numbers in Toronto. Did you know that the 905'ers who have cell phones almost always choose 416 # due to the wider local coverage? (that is it is not a toll call!!). Putting cells on a different band will help slow the splits!!!! Better yet we should add another digit to our local number that will increase them 10 fold. (maybe we could even have reverse splits???) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:24:13 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: ISDN in Germany --- forwarded message --- From: herrmann@kirsche.wupper.de (Wolfgang Herrmann) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn Subject: Re: ISDN hitting its stride or dying a slow death???? Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:24:47 GMT It has been interesting for me to read this thread and compare it with the situation in Germany. Let me share with you my observations: The penetration in Germany has been at the end of 1997 2.9 million BRI and 56 thousend PRI out of 40 million phone lines and 80 million people. Thus, the penetration is substantially higher than in the US. What made ISDN fly in my opinion ? In the beginning, (1990), the driving force were medium to large PABXs connected via PRI. At that time, it was cheaper to use ISDN because the monthly subscribtion was lower if you needed more than 7 or 8 lines and the PABX itself was cheaper if it used a digital connection to the public exchange. The tariff for the calls was identical to the tariff for analog calls. All this is still valid, so since the beginning of the 90's practically all new PABXs installed were ISDN. In 1994 the BRI started to take off and actually overtook the PRI in the number of B-channels installed. A great boom came in 1995, when the number of BRI doubled. This was fuelled by a subsidizing plan of Deutsche Telekom: When you subscribed to ISDN, you received credit on your phone bill that would effectively pay for the ISDN phone. Also, it should be noted that it is cheaper to use ISDN than to have two analog lines. So I think, pricing played an important role in bringing up the penetration. Also, there was more motivation for Telekom to promote ISDN than for the RBOCs: Germany was relatively late in the digitisation of local exchanges, the result of this was that pracitcally all digital exchanges that were installed were capable of supporting ISDN without any modification or upgrades. Also, the distance between exchanges and subscribers is such that allmost all can be served without repeaters. Another thing that helps getting ISDN to the small office and home office is the availability of inexpensive PBXs that supports both ISDN and analog phones. A typical unit has an S0 bus for the connection of ISDN terminal equipment and eight analog ports, so you can still use your fax, answering machines, modems and analog phones. Such a unit sells for about $420. An ISDN phone will cost you about $100, an ISDN PC card costs about $80. The NT is included in the connection fee of $55. There were some commensts on the powering issue: Yes, in Germany power is provided from the exchange if local power fails. To be precise, the NT electronics is always powered from the exchange, and the power supply in the NT will power the terminal equipment under normal conditions. If local power fails, the NT will draw a few hundred milliwatts from the exchange to continue to provide power to the terminal. This, however, is not supported by all terminal equipment. Somebody said, that the German user may not even have a choice whether to go ISDN or not. This is not the case, still normal analog lines are provided and there are no plans to change that. Regards, Wolfgang Herrmann Kirschbaumstrasse 24, 42115 Wuppertal, Germany phone: ++49 202 308000 fax: ++49 202 3702242 email: herrmann@kirsche.wupper.de http://www.wupper.de/sites/kirsche/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:28:47 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T Foreign Language Operator/Card Services By dialing '00' from a presubscribed AT&T line, or 10(10)288-0('#'/0) from any equal access line ... when the voice-menu prompts come on after the "AT&T" jingle, you can say "Espan(i)ol" and get voice-menu prompts in Spanish. Similarly, dialing 00 (AT&T presubscribed) or 10(10)288-0('#'/0), and then entering *111 (star-one-one-one) at the 'jingle' will get you the same voice-menu prompts in Spanish. Both of the above methods of accessing AT&T Spanish language prompts are both automated in Spanish and allow the option of reaching a live AT&T Spanish speaking operator. 800-233-9008 is an AT&T 800-access number for Spanish card/opr services. I haven't tried dialing this one yet to see if it is automated, or only directly goes live to an AT&T Spanish speaking operator. Saying "Espan(i)ol" on AT&T's 800-CALL-ATT (800-225-5288) or 800-321-0288 access numbers don't changeover to Spanish language prompts. AT&T has other 800- card/operator access numbers for other foreign languages, as well as other *1XX (star-one-x-x) codes for foreign languages used on '00' access, as well. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Subject: Phoning Home From Abroad: You Make the Call Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:52:57 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By David Cay Johnston New York Times News Service MATT Smedley, 24, was nearing the end of a year spent exploring Europe last June when he spotted a pay phone in Tromso, a Norwegian harbor town above the Arctic Circle, and decided to call his parents in Malvern, Pa. "I thought it would cost a fortune, but I wanted to call so I did," said Smedley. Calling home from abroad can indeed be costly, as some travelers who pick up the phone in their hotel discover when they check out and are faced with surcharges that can make the cost of a telephone call higher than the room price. But as Smedley learned, a call home these days can also be cheap, almost as cheap as a long-distance call in the United States. "I found out later," Smedley said, "that my call cost just 35 cents a minute because my parents had signed up with MCI for an international plan that cost them $3 a month and 35 cents a minute to call me and, it turned out, the same price for me to call them." The splintering of the American telephone system and the explosion in electronic communications means there is now a dizzying array of options for phoning home from almost anywhere. Things began to change in the early 1990s, said Elroy Cartwright, director of travel services for AT&T. Technology, competition and treaties all began to converge to lower prices for savvy callers. In 1927 the only way to place a call between New York and London was via a very high-frequency radio transmitter at a cost of $75 for three minutes of rather poor-quality sound. That price is the equivalent of more than $700 today. In 1998, you can make the same call for less than $1 with a cheap calling plan. "Prices have come way way down, but there are still privately owned situations that are gouging people," Cartwright said. "And while you should be wary of hotel room telephones, you can also walk up to what you think is a public pay phone and find out later you got socked with a $98 bill for a one- or two-minute call." Here are the basics of how to call home from abroad inexpensively: International call plans. Domestic long-distance carriers, like MCI and AT&T, have programs that can save money on calls both into and out of the United States. Expect to pay a modest monthly fee, such as the $3 for the MCI plan the Smedley family used, and then per-minute rates that are usually well under $1 a minute. Typically you will be given a wallet-size card with access numbers for most countries. If you call from a pay phone you may have to drop in a coin, or use a calling card issued by the local telephone company, to get a dial tone. Direct service. AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Premiere Worldlink Services and a variety of other long-distance carriers offer customers local numbers in other countries that connect directly to the United States, offering substantial savings compared to going through each country's own long-distance system. These services involve obtaining a calling card, which typically has your home telephone number plus a four-digit Personal Identification Number, or PIN, with the charges then billed to your home phone or to a credit card. The cheapest service for calls from Europe to the United States is Voicenet, according to the February issue of Consumer Reports Travel Letter. The company -- at (800) 864-2363 or on the Internet at http://www.vnetcard.com -- has no minimums or per-call surcharges, charges lower per-minute fees than most competitors and bills in six-second increments instead of rounding up to the next minute as AT&T, MCI, Sprint and Premiere do. A recent survey of long-distance carriers found that a one-minute call to the United States from Britain cost 27.5 cents with Voicenet, compared with $5.56 with AT&T. (A one-time activation fee of 99 cents is charged for joining Voicenet over the phone; there is no fee for joining on the Internet.) Hotel rooms. A basic money-saving rule has always been to avoid using hotel room phones. But even that is changing. AT&T has agreements with most international Sheratons and some other hotel chains to have a "hot button" on room phones that connects directly to AT&T, eliminating hotel surcharges. Callback services. These services are disappearing with global deregulation of telephone services, but if you will be in one place for a long time, and you expect to make a lot of calls to the United States, they may save you money. You dial a number in the United States, then hang up after one ring. A computer calls you back and gives you a dial tone, allowing you to make calls at the rates charged by domestic long-distance companies, generally lower than rates abroad. Telegroup, a Fairfield, Iowa, long-distance company, will examine rates between countries to customize a calling plan, Stan Bierbrier, the company treasurer, said. For information, call (800) 338-0225; http://www.telegroup.com. Cybercafes. A growing number of European cities have cafes that rent Internet access for about $5 per half-hour. These are a good way to check e-mail if you use a service such as hotmail.com. (See story, Page 8H.) E-Mail by voice. You can have your e-mail messages read to you by a computer if you sign up for Premiere Worldlink's "platinum service," (800) 609-2030 or on the Internet at http://www.premtek.com, for $19.95 a month. You have your e-mail routed to Premiere, which then uses text-to-speech software to have a computer read the subject line of each e-mail and then the text. "Once you hear the header, if the message is spam you can discard it and go on to the next," said Premiere's David Allison. You can use the keypad to indicate one of six canned responses. A number of long-distance carriers have indicated that they may soon offer a similar service. Cell phones. Your domestic cell phone will not work outside North America, and it will work in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean only if your cellular company has a roaming agreement with a company at your destination. Much of the rest of the world uses GSM technology, or global system for mobile communications. You can have calls to your domestic cell phone forwarded to a GSM cell phone in many countries, though it is costly. AT&T Wireless charges $49.99 a year plus $2.49 a minute. The company programs a credit card-size piece of plastic, embedded with circuits, that you insert into a GSM phone to make and receive calls in 77 countries. Iridium. In September the Iridium system, using a network of satellites, is scheduled to go into service, making cellular-type telephone services available everywhere on the planet. Satellite calls will require special telephones. A spokeswoman said the company has agreements with more than 140 distribution partners worldwide, but was not ready to release their names or prices, which she said would be "very competitive with existing wireless offerings." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #38 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 18 23:52:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18822; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:52:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803190452.XAA18822@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #39 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Mar 98 23:52:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 39 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Century to Purchase 19 Wisconsin Exchanges From Ameritech (Tad Cook) Cable Modem Scams and Ripoffs (Mike Hughes) Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities (Nathan Brophy) Collect Call Fraud (Sam Biller) Pagers Now Charging the Universal Service Tax - err - Fee (D.Burstein) 612, 651 Split Problems(Tad Cook) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Century to Purchase 19 Wisconsin Exchanges From Ameritech Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:57:41 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) MONROE, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 12, 1998--Ameritech and Century Telephone Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: CTL), have entered into a definitive agreement under which Century will purchase the assets of some of Ameritech's local telephone operations and directory publishing business in northern and parts of central Wisconsin. The cash transaction is for approximately $225 million and is expected to close in the fourth quarter, pending regulatory approval. The sale will include the property and equipment that serves 68,000 customers, or 85,000 telephone lines, as well as directory publishing operations for nine telephone directories. The properties to be acquired are adjacent to Century's existing operations. With the acquisition, Century will serve 330,000 telephone lines in Wisconsin. Century is the third largest local telephone company in the state. The 21 communities served by the 19 exchanges include: Ashland, Bayfield, Cornell, Hurley, Ladysmith, Saxon, Stanley, Superior, Washburn, McAllister, Marinette, Oconto, Oconto Falls, Peshtigo, Baraboo, Berlin, Green Lake, Mazomanie, North Freedom, Princeton and Redgranite. `This agreement is another major step in Century's efforts to aggressively expand our presence in Wisconsin's rural and smaller urban communities,` said Glen F. Post III, Century's president and chief executive officer. `It supports our geographic clustering strategy, with Wisconsin being our largest state in terms of telephone lines served. `Century will combine these new territories with our existing service areas in neighboring communities, enabling us to enhance network efficiencies and provide our new and existing customers with the highest quality service possible,` Post said. Customers will see no change in their area codes, telephone numbers, or local calling areas, and customer rates for local telephone service will remain the same, under terms of the agreement. `The sale truly is a win-win opportunity for both companies and shareowners,` said Ellen M. Gardner, president of Ameritech Wisconsin. `Customers in these areas will benefit because of the proximity of these exchanges to Century's operations. That allows Ameritech to more effectively focus our resources on our remaining customers, which creates value for our shareowners.` The exchanges that Century will acquire represent less than five percent of Ameritech's telephone operations in Wisconsin, which now include 2.2 million lines and 6,500 employees in the state. Customers who will be served by Century will be receiving more information in the mail. In addition, both companies have established a special hotline at 1-800-316-7765 to respond to questions from customers. Century (NYSE: CTL) is the 10th largest local exchange company, based on number of telephone lines, and the 10th largest cellular company, based on population equivalents owned, in the U.S. Century provides a full range of communications services including local, wireless, long distance, voice mail, data services and Internet access to more than two million customers in 21 states. Headquartered in Monroe, LA, Century (www.centurytel.com) is recognized as a leader in serving small urban and rural markets with high-quality, affordable services. Century currently has 245,000 lines in 96 Wisconsin exchanges. Century has 835 employees in Wisconsin and maintains regional wireline headquarters in La Crosse. Ameritech (NYSE: AIT) serves millions of customers in 50 states and 40 countries. Ameritech provides a full range of communications services, including local and long distance telephone, cellular, paging, security monitoring, cable TV, Internet services and more. One of the world's 100 largest companies, Ameritech (www.ameritech.com) has 74,000 employees, 1 million shareowners and more than $25 billion in assets. In addition to historical information, this release includes certain forward-looking statements that are subject to uncertainties that could cause Century's actual results to differ materially from such statements. Such uncertainties include but are not limited to: the effects of ongoing deregulation in the telecommunications industry; the effects of greater than anticipated competition in the Company's markets; possible changes in the demand for the Company's products and services; the Company's ability to successfully introduce new offerings on a timely and cost-effective basis; the risks inherent in rapid technological change; the Company's ability to effectively manage its growth, including integrating newly acquired operations into the Company's operations; and the effects of more general factors such as changes in overall market or economic conditions or in legislation, regulation or public policy. These and other uncertainties related to the Company's business are described in greater detail in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997. FACT SHEET Ameritech and Century Telephone Enterprises, Inc., have entered into a definitive agreement under which Century will purchase the assets of Ameritech's local telephone operations and directory publishing business in 21 communities covering 19 exchanges in northern and parts of central Wisconsin. The sale, for approximately $225 million in cash, will include all property and equipment in the exchanges. The 21 communities include: Ashland, Bayfield, Cornell, Hurley, Ladysmith, Saxon, Stanley, Superior, Washburn, McAllister, Marinette, Oconto, Oconto Falls, Peshtigo, Baraboo, Berlin, Green Lake, Mazomanie, North Freedom, Princeton and Redgranite. The following telephone exchange prefixes are affected: (715 area code) 239, 373, 392, 394, 395, 398, 399, 532, 561, 582, 644, 682, 685, 732, 735, 779, 893. (920 area code) 294, 295, 361, 566, 834, 846. (608 area code) 355, 356, 522, 795. Sixty-eight thousand customers will be affected by the sale. This represents 85,000 telephone lines and corresponding telephone numbers, 500 pay phones, 23 switching offices and equipment, 37 buildings and nine telephone directories. The sale represents less than 5 percent of Ameritech's total phone lines in Wisconsin. Fifty Ameritech employees work in these areas. Ameritech anticipates offering affected employees jobs elsewhere within the company based on their qualifications. Century also will be hiring in these areas and affected Ameritech employees will be actively considered by Century. Regulatory approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice are required before the sale can be completed. All customers currently receiving local phone service from Ameritech in the 21 communities will become Century customers once the sale is approved and the transaction is finalized. Approval is expected near the end of this year. Both companies also will review details of the sale with the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin. Local service rates in the 21 affected communities will remain the same as Ameritech's at least until the year 2000. Century expects to provide initial financing through its committed credit facilities. While permanent financing plans will be determined once further analysis of the impact of non-strategic asset dispositions is completed, management intends, subject to market conditions, to implement permanent financing consistent with its goal of achieving a long-term debt-to-capital target ratio of 50 percent. Century has provided quality telephone service in Wisconsin communities for more than 25 years. It has been expanding its presence in Wisconsin and the rest of the country. Last year, Century acquired Pacific Telecom (PTI) and Pecoco, Inc., providers of local exchange services in Wisconsin. Century's Wisconsin presence covers (not including the transaction with Ameritech) 245,000 telephone lines in 96 exchanges, 835 employees and a regional wireline office in La Crosse. Century is the 10th largest local exchange company in the U.S. based on number of telephone lines, and the 3rd largest local exchange company in Wisconsin. Century offers a range of communications services, including local exchange, wireless, long distance, voice mail, data services and Internet access to more than 2 million customers in 21 states. Its market niche is serving rural and small urban territories. Customers in the areas being purchased by Century will be receiving more information in the mail. Customers will keep their existing telephone numbers and will not have to do anything differently regarding their existing service. In addition, both companies have established a special hotline at 1-800-316-7765 to respond to questions from customers. http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Hughes Subject: Cable Modem Scams and Ripoffs Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:20:36 -0800 Organization: gte.net The cable modem internet access device is characterised as hundreds to even thousands of times faster than conventional analog POTS modems. However, many companies in the industry (namely, GTE) are taking advantage of the hype to deliver sub-standard and over-priced services to people that have heard the hype but don't really know what it's like to use a high-bandwidth device to access the internet. GTE is a prime example of this. Their service, WorldWind, is physically limited by the modem's setup to 17kilobytes/sec, **barely** faster than typical ISDN service, which achieves 15-16kbytes/sec regularly. GTE is taking advantage of the fact that typical windows/MacOS users, use to 2-3kilobytes/sec downloads from their telephone lines, jump for joy to see speeds like that. In their default "tech" response to questions about the pathetic speeds of their service, they reply with comments such as "Our system is engineered to provide constant performance" and "Even ISDN can't compete." http://www.psilord.com is my homepage that I've setup to protest GTE's horrible service. It has full details on the service and competing services. The above two quotes are such a load of bull. GTE also offers cable modem service that is designed to compete with 64k isdn and 56k dialup modems! This is insanely stupid! The new technology was not intended and should not be implemented to compete with yester-decade's technology. GTE is taking advantage of the hype and truths of the industry to inject their lies and undelivered promises into the homes of many clueless users that have no other option but to succumb to GTE's grasp on the telecommunications empire around many cities (namely, Thousand Oaks, California and Clearwater, Florida and the surrounding areas). GTE is even aware of the fact that their modems are slow as hell! On their homepage, they had a large file available for download to "show off" the "speeds" of their modems. The file was originally 8 megabytes or so (it was a large tiff file) and said "this file would take a fraction of the time with a GTE worldwind cable modem!". However, it still took 10 minutes to download with the fastest speeds that GTE offered on their modems. They have recently changed this graphic to 1.3 megabytes, to avoid the embarassment and questions araised by the fact that their *cable modems* take a curiously long time to download such a relatively small file. @Home and RoadRunner have no limitations on the speed of their modems. Compared to 17kilobytes/sec on GTE's service, they deliver upwards of 300kilobytes/sec! Yes, that's a meg every three seconds! *THAT* is how the cable modem architecture was meant to be used, not GTE's flimsy 17kilobytes/sec. When you're selecting cable modem services for your home or office, be aware of the ripoffs that exist in the cable modem industry. Beware of un-competitive and exploitive services! They exist. The cable modem can be taken advantage of to the user's disadvantage. Be aware. If you would like to read more and do something about this issue if you're using GTE's service (or if you're just a concerned internet citizen), go to http://www.psilord.com to read all about this cheap ripoff. I would like to know what you people think about this issue. Sorry for the cross-posting, but i've been battling with this for months. Email me at wxh@gte.net or go to my website to respond. Thanks a lot for all your support so far! Mike Hughes wxh@gte.net http://www.psilord.com ------------------------------ From: Nathan Brophy Subject: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:03:18 -0600 Organization: INTERNET AMERICA I am a college student majoring in MIS. I am currently doing research to identify the top telecom and technology centric metropolitan areas in the US. I know of Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley but I am looking for other less known metropolitan areas that also can be considered top high bandwidth and high technology cities. I am also interested in identifying various businesses that are drawn to and depend on these metropolitan environments. I would really appreciate if anyone could direct me to any helpful trade magazines, prior research, or interesting relevant articles that will assist me in identifying the top telecom and technology centric metropolitan areas in the US. Thank you, Nathan Brophy brophy@airmail.net nbrophy@post.smu.edu http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy "Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown * Denver Broncos Super Bowl XXXII World Champions! * ------------------------------ From: Sam Biller Subject: Collect Call Fraud Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:58:31 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I just received a phone bill from Bell Atlantic - MD which has a single collect call on it billed as a service to ILD TELESERVICES. The call was $63.14 for 39 minutes. The call originated in Florida and I'm in Maryland. This is totally outrageous that this company charged over a $1.60/minute for this call with no disclosure to the person accepting the collect call. I spoke with Bell Atlantic and they told me there is nothing they can do about the charge and that I am responsible for this rip-off. I would appreciate any information as to what I can do about this charge and what recourse I have, if any. Thanks, Sam Biller sbiller@iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:54:22 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: Pagers Now Charging the Universal Service Tax - er - Fee And let's not wince words. It is a tax. Here's the word from Skytel. Similar announcements have been made by other paging companies: (original text at: www.skytel.com; follow the menu from there) Universal Service Fund Fee In the Universal Service Order released May 8, 1997, the Federal Communications Commission established new federal universal service support mechanisms consistent with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The money raised will be used to wire schools, libraries, and rural health-care centers for telecommunications. The Commission required all telecommunications carriers that provide interstate telecommunications services, providers of interstate telecommunications, and payphone service providers to contribute to the federal universal support mechanisms. Beginning March 1998, SkyTel will include a nominal charge of 1.5% of the previous month's charges excluding taxes and finance charges. In other words, the charge listed on the March 1 invoice will be 1.5% of the February invoice. Within the detail of the invoice a line item will appear as "FCC Universal Service Fund Fee". These funds will be remitted to the Federal government as part of our contribution to the Universal Service Fund. This amount may vary on occasion as the FCC makes adjustments. Your voice can make a difference For more information, visit the FCC web site (www.fcc.gov). If you'd like to let the FCC know your opinion on the ruling, please send an email to fccinfo@fcc.gov, call 202-418-0200 or send a letter to: Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, NW Washington DC 20554 ------------------------------ Subject: 612, 651 Split Problems Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:14:20 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) US West, Rival Say Twin Cities, Minn., Area Code Plan Unworkable, Costly By Martin J. Moylan, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 12--US West and Frontier Communications say they will have to split seven Twin Cities communities between two area codes if they're to meet the Public Utilities Commission's July target for establishing a new area code for the metropolitan area. When the commission ordered the creation of the new 651 area code for St. Paul and points east last December, it decreed that the border with communities retaining the 612 code follow municipal lines. That had never been done before, protested US West, adding that the maneuver would be technically risky and extremely expensive. And now Frontier says following municipal lines would also be a big headache. Both filed their arguments with the PUC Wednesday. The PUC will take comments from communities involved and other interested parties until March 18. A hearing and a decision by the commission is expected on March 31. The Baby Bell's proposed rejiggering of the dividing line for the two area codes would affect about 5,000 customers. About 1,900 customers in Lino Lakes, 1,200 in Shoreview and 425 in New Brighton would remain in the 612 area code -- while most of their fellow citizens land in the 651 area code. The prefixes going to the 612 code would be: 717, 780, 783, 784, 785, 786, 792, 795, and 957. About 900 customers in Eagan with 707, 808, 882, 890, 894, and 895 prefixes would remain in the 612 area code. Most of the community would get the 651 area code, though. About 500 customers in Apple Valley with 405, 452, 454, 456, 681, 683, 686, 687, 688, 726, 727, and 905 prefixes would remain in the 651 area code. The rest of Apple Valley would be in 612. Frontier wants to follow phone exchange lines in Rosemount and Farmington, putting most of Rosemount and all of Farmington in the 612 area code. The two communities are now scheduled to be in 651. Customers with 423, 322, 460 and 463 prefixes would be affected. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #39 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 19 08:54:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA06488; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:54:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:54:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803191354.IAA06488@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #40 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Mar 98 08:54:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 40 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 2nd CFP - IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium 1998 (RTSS '98) (R. Gerber) Telecom Update (Canada) #124, March 16, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) PacBell's Response to Posted Complaint (Michael D. Maxfield) New MCI FCC Charge (Marni Kamzan) IP-Telephony Early Adopter Interview Subjects (Scott Loney) Bell System Documentation (Tony Pelliccio) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rich@cs.umd.edu (Richard Gerber) Subject: 2nd CFP - IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium 1998 (RTSS '98) Date: 18 Mar 1998 01:06:28 -0500 Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 CALL FOR PAPERS The 19th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium Madrid, Spain December 2-4, 1998 Sponsored by The IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Real-Time Systems SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE RTSS '98 brings together a diverse body of researchers and developers, to advance the science and practice of real-time and embedded systems. All papers on real-time, embedded or reactive systems are welcome, including (but not limited to) the following topics: * Real-time and embedded operating systems. * Systems design and analysis: theories, methods and tools. * Scheduling techniques: CPUs, devices, networks, end-to-end. * Programming languages for real-time and embedded systems. * Specification, verification and automated analysis. * Middleware and APIs for real-time and embedded systems. * Performance evaluation: theory, analysis and tool support. * Domain-specific architectures for embedded systems. * Instrumentation, profiling, testing and debug support. * Support for COTS-based integrated systems. * Fault-tolerance, reliability and safety. * Program analysis and tools. * Object-oriented languages: designs, programs, interfaces. * Real-time and reactive databases and file systems. * Computer networks and communications. * Signal processing, control and robotics. * Digital video, audio, animation and multimedia. Papers on these or other relevant topics are solicited for RTSS '98. Of particular interest are case-study reports on experimental results, from any core application area in real-time, embedded and/or reactive systems. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Papers should describe original research (i.e., not published elsewhere), and should not exceed 20 double-spaced pages. All accepted submissions will appear in the proceedings published by IEEE, with the committee recommending a selection of the best papers for publication in a journal. If possible, submissions should be made electronically, either in postscript or PDF format. Additional details on submission guidelines will be posted at the RTSS'98 Home Page: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~rich/rtss98/ Electronic submissions are preferred; however postal submissions will be accepted for review, provided they arrive by the Submission Deadline of May 1, 1998. All authors taking this option should mail eight (8) copies of their submitted papers to the Program Chair: Richard Gerber Email: rich@cs.umd.edu Department of Computer Science URL: www.cs.umd.edu/~rich University of Maryland Phone: +1-301-405-2710 College Park, MD 20742 USA Fax: +1-301-405-6707 IMPORTANT DATES * May 1, 1998 -- Deadline for paper submissions * July 25, 1998 -- Notification of acceptance * September 1, 1998 -- Final paper due * December 2-4, 1998 -- RTSS '98, Madrid, Spain EXHIBITION, WORKSHOP AND WORK-IN-PROGRESS SESSIONS Exhibition and Show: RTSS '98 will include an industrial exhibition in a centrally located space, for vendors to demonstrate state-of-the-art systems, development tools and applications; where RTSS attendees can engage in technical discussions with product engineers and developers; and where company representatives meet (and potentially recruit) young researchers specializing in real-time and embedded systems. To reserve space for the exhibition, please contact the RTSS '98 Industrial Chair, Dr. Alan Burns (burns@minster.cs.york.ac.uk). Workshop: RTSS '98 will co-host a workshop on December 1, 1998, directly before the conference. The focus of the workshop will be a "hot topic" of special interest to researchers and developers of real-time systems. Recent RTSS workshops were on topics such as Middleware/APIs (1997) and Multimedia Systems (1996). More information on the 1998 workshop topic will be announced shortly, and publicized on the conference home page. Work-in-Progress Session: As in previous years, RTSS '98 will include a Work-In-Progress (WIP) session, featuring short presentations on new and evolving work. Accepted WIP papers will be included in a special proceedings, and distributed to RTSS'98 conference participants. The proceedings will then be published electronically on the IEEE-CS TC-RTS Home Page. WIP papers will be due approximately one month before the Symposium. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE General Chair: Kwei-Jay Lin, University of California, Irvine Program Chair: Richard Gerber, University of Maryland Finance Chair: Walt Heimerdinger, Honeywell Technology Center Registration Chair: Linda Buss Local Arrangements Chair: Angel Alvarez, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Local Treasurer: Juan A. de la Puente, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Publicity Co-Chairs: Alejandro Alonso, Universidad Politicnica de Madrid (Europe) Chao-Ju Jennifer Hou, Ohio State University (Americas) Joseph Ng, Hong Kong Baptist University (Asia/Pacific) Industrial Chair: Alan Burns, University of York Ex-Officio: (RTS-TC Chair) Doug Locke, Lockheed Martin Corporation PROGRAM COMMITTEE James Anderson (University of North Carolina) Azer Bestavros (Boston University) Sanjoy Baruah (University of Vermont) Giorgio Butazzio (Scuola Superiore e Sant'Anna) Gerhard Fohler (Malardalen University) Michael Gonzalez Harbour (Universidad Cantabria) Jeffrey Hollingsworth (University of Maryland) Seongsoo Hong (Seoul National University) Farnam Jahanian (University of Michigan) Kevin Jeffay (University of North Carolina) Hermann Kopetz (Vienna University of Technology) Kim G. Larsen (Aalborg University) Insup Lee (University of Pennsylvania) Jane W.S. Liu (University of Illinois) Keith Marzullo (University of California at San Diego) Sang Lyul Min (Seoul National University) Al Mok (University of Texas at Austin) Ragunathan Rajkumar (Carnegie Mellon University) Jennifer Rexford (AT&T Research) Manas Saksena (Concordia University) Bran Selic (ObjectTime, Ltd.) Andy Wellings (University of York) David Wilner (Wind River Systems) Sergio Yovine (CNRS/VERIMAG) Hui Zhang (Carnegie Mellon University) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:29:54 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #124, March 16, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 124: March 16, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Coalition Slams Teleglobe Appeal ** fONOROLA Raises $151 Million ** Bell Signs Up One Million for "FirstRate" ** Lucent Buys TKM Communications ** BC Tel Takes Writedown ** NewTel Buys Minerva ** MTS NetCom Changes Name ** Expertech Technicians Reject Contract ** Nortel Offers Meridian Text Telephony ** U.S.-Japan Cable Planned ** ACT Buys Commstar ** QuebecTel to Provide Corporate Intranets ** InfoInterActive Wins U.S. Contract ** PCS Carriers Cooperate for Calgary Microwave Towers ** Nortel, Cisco Join for Internet Access ** Royal Buys Internet Bank ** Internet Providers' Group Seeks President ** RISC Reorganizes, Incorporates ** What's Your Telecom Credibility Quotient? ============================================================ COALITION SLAMS TELEGLOBE APPEAL: Twenty-three telecom carriers have formed the "Coalition for Overseas Telecommunications Competition" to oppose Teleglobe's appeal of a CRTC ruling permitting "switched hubbing" -- the use of Teleglobe lines to route calls to third countries. fONOROLA RAISES $151 MILLION: fONOROLA Inc. has raised $151 Million through an equity offering. The proceeds will be used for U.S. expansion and other purposes. BELL SIGNS UP ONE MILLION FOR "FIRSTRATE": Bell Canada says that one million customers registered for its FirstRate long distance savings plan in the first month after it was introduced. Forty percent of the sign-ups came through automated phone and Internet ordering services. LUCENT BUYS TKM COMMUNICATIONS: Lucent Technologies has acquired TKM Communications, a Toronto-based call center integrator with 45 employees. BC TEL TAKES WRITEDOWN: BC Tel has joined the other Stentor members in converting to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result, the telco's first-quarter earnings will take a $531 Million one-time writedown. NEWTEL BUYS MINERVA: NewTel Enterprises, the parent of Newfoundland's telco, has agreed to purchase Minerva Technology Inc, a Calgary-based systems integrator which specializes in client-server systems for the oil and gas industry. MTS NETCOM CHANGES NAME: Manitoba Tel's local, long distance, data, and enhanced services subsidiary has changed its name from MTS NetCom to MTS Communications. (See Telecom Update #110) EXPERTECH TECHNICIANS REJECT CONTRACT: Technicians at Expertech, a subsidiary of Bell Canada, have voted 90% to reject a proposed contract that would have eliminated 10 paid days off a year, cut wages 5%, and increased the work week from 38 to 40 hours. NORTEL OFFERS MERIDIAN TEXT TELEPHONY: Northern Telecom's new Meridian Text Telephony System allows deaf and hard-of- hearing people to communicate directly with users of a PC via the corporate LAN or intranet. U.S.-JAPAN CABLE PLANNED: A consortium of U.S. and Japanese companies is building Pacific Crossing (PC-1), the first privately owned and operated cross-Pacific undersea cable. The 20,000-kilometer fiber optic system is to begin service within 24 months. ACT BUYS COMMSTAR: U.S.-based Applied Cellular Technology, which bought City Dial Network Services in January, has agreed to buy Canada's Commstar Ltd. for about $14 Million. Commstar operates the Tigertel voice messaging service bureau, messaging call centers, and a call-forwarding service. (See Telecom Update #115) QUEBECTEL TO PROVIDE CORPORATE INTRANETS: QuebecTel has launched a new Montreal-based service, Rezolution, which will implement and manage corporate intranets. INFOINTERACTIVE WINS U.S. CONTRACT: Cincinnati Bell Inc. will market InfoInterActive's Internet Call Manager, which notifies Internet users when a voice call comes in. Halifax- based InfoInterActive has also received a $375,000 investment from MT&T. PCS CARRIERS COOPERATE FOR CALGARY MICROWAVE TOWERS: Clearnet, Microcell, Rogers Cantel, and Telus Mobility, in collaboration with the City of Calgary, have developed a plan to coordinate and reduce the number of microwave tower sites in residential areas of the city. NORTEL, CISCO JOIN FOR INTERNET ACCESS: Northern Telecom and Cisco Systems will collaborate in developing products for high-speed Internet access. As part of the deal, Nortel transferred its stake in NetSpeed, a U.S. equipment maker, to Cisco, which is acquiring the company. ROYAL BUYS INTERNET BANK: Royal Bank of Canada is buying the banking assets of Atlanta-based Security First Network Bank, the first bank set up to sell its services exclusively over the Internet. INTERNET PROVIDERS' GROUP SEEKS PRESIDENT: The Canadian Association of Internet Providers is looking for a President. Applications for the two-year, full-time position are due March 30. Send resume to: jobs@caip.ca RISC REORGANIZES, INCORPORATES: Five Ontario ISPs have relaunched the Responsible Internet Service Companies (RISC), a "watchdog and lobby" organization formed two years ago, because they are "angry at their treatment by Bell Canada." http://www.risc.ca WHAT'S YOUR TELECOM CREDIBILITY QUOTIENT? Finding it hard to convince senior management to back your proposals? In the March issue of Telemanagement, Henry Dortmans explains how a properly prepared Telecom Baseline can boost your Telecom Credibility Quotient. Also in the March Telemanagement: ** "New Wireless Options Challenge Fiber and Copper in Local Telecom," by Lis Angus ** "Canadian Auto Industry Drives Toward a Business Internet," by John Riddell To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:13:27 -0800 Subject: PacBell's Response to Posted Complaint Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) Remember me? I posted here several days ago, and I was in a very nasty mood over not being allowed to impress upon a 611 repair representative, that a certain problem I was experiencing with my phone service to certain destinations, was not with my lines, but with PacBell's circuits. I'm no longer in that nasty mood ... sort of still gloating a bit in the "I told you so" fashion. I'm told that my problem is now fixed, and I haven't seen anything to contradict that ... I'm a happy camper now. Sees that someone high up in PacBell read or had passed to them, my posted complaint. (It was posted in comp.dcom.telecom as well as in a couple of Bay Area newsgroups ... general, consumers, and internet) I am told that the local facility which schedules repairs for the area, received a call from PacBell's NOC in Sacramento, and it was relayed that the bosses were upset about some guy flaming PacBell on the Internet for things gone wrong in MORGCA12. PacBell sent a tech out to MORGCA12, the CO for my service, and quickly found the problem. It was a MUX card on the end of a T1, which should have been set for "AMI" but was instead set for "B8ZS". (I'm curious as to what this setting handles, is it stacking, bandwidth, or modulation scheme?) I'm told that the problem is similar to trying to receive a Zmodem download with a program that only understands Kermit ... although I think that's a bit off, since I could get some communication over the established connection, whereas in the Zmodem/Kermit example nothing would get through ... probably more like running a jet engine on gasoline. Anyway, if the person who kicked new life into my trouble ticket is reading this, Thank You. I also want to point out that I wasn't flaming PacBell for something gone wrong in MORGCA12. Technical problems happen ... I was flaming PacBell for something gone wrong in the trouble reporting works, where one rep hangs up on a customer when asking to speak to a supervisor, and where both reps in one night would only "check *your* line for problems, but if it is clean, then there is nothing else that can be done." I don't know if they would have passed the ticket up to a second level for looking at as an unsettled complaint, or if they would have closed the ticket out right then and there as being unfounded. I got the impression that it was the latter disposition the ticket was destined for. There doesn't really appear to be a way to work within the system to report a problem which is beyond the "have you tested it at the demarc" level, UNLESS you end up with a rep on the line who is willing to use some independent smarts and realize that not every problem is covered on the laminated trouble Q/A chart in front of them, and take some initiative to go beyond what the chart says when the chart doesn't list a problem for the symptoms cited in the complaint. If my posting to Usenet and the three previous calls to 611 in two days hadn't brought the problem to the attention of someone who was independent enough to get the ball past the complaint lobby, then I would have had to decide which of the following two would have been my next option: - For every day the problem exists, call that evening and report the problem without referencing previous reports in the hope that at least one of them would result in a ticket moving up the tree to someplace where it might get the attention it deserved; or - Print up multiple copies of my complaint detailing the problem with the service, and at the risk of imposing upon acquaintances, asking folks whom I know work for PacBell, if they'd be willing, publically or anonymously, to pass my complaint up the lines to some point where it might get acted upon. Neither option really strikes me as pleasant. They both reek of abusive actions, but when the doors to the proper channels are guarded by map readers with incomplete maps, there really aren't many pleasant options left. I know there are good people in PacBell. I've dealt with them often over the years, and I can't recall any time where I've been hung up on or told that no problem exists when all the evidence points to one... and both of those bad experiences in the same day. :( All the same, in the three calls I made to 611 over this problem, only 1 got up to bat. It looked like the ball was headed out of the stadium, but for some reason the problem came back the next day, and the next two players didn't even want to get up off the bench to walk the plates. It looked like it might be a strike-out, but at the last minute a pinch hitter came in off the net, and brought in the first batter with a triple. Thank You. ------------------------------ From: Marni Kamzan Subject: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:37:22 -0800 I am looking for answers to broader questions about the new PICC charges mandated by the FCC. What I cannot understand is why different carriers have such disparate charges for this PICC charge. To the best of my knowledge, the following is accurate for business accounts: MCI charges between 13 and 30% of the total usage, based on a sliding scale. ATT charges 4.09% of the bills usage. Qwest charges $2.75 per business line, per month, regardless of usage. (I've seen bills with lines with a monthly usage total of $.32 with a $2.75 PICC charge!) Can anyone really explain the rhyme or reason behind the wild vagaries of these charges? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:22:02 -0500 From: Scott Loney <75310.127@compuserve.com> Subject: IP-Telephony Early Adopter Interview Subjects For Telecom Study Mr. Townson: I have been an occasional reader of TELECOM Digest for several years, but this is the first time I have tried to communicate directly with you. I am a student in the graduate program in telecommunications at Michigan State University, presently assisting in research one of our professors is undertaking in the field of IP-based telephony. There is, as you know, a great deal of interest among both academics and in the business community in the future of IP telephony, particularly as it may (or may not) represent the replacement of the circuit-switched voice traffic that currently dominates the PSTN. Much of this interest is expressed in the trade press and in research being performed by private consulting firms. We want to take an analytical snapshot of IP-telephony as it is being used now by early adopters, particularly among small and medium-sized businesses. My request is to see if there exists among your readers anyone who would be willing to direct us to current users of IP-telephony applications, either in a privately-networked environment, or via gateway to and from the public network (or both). We would like to interview these users. The questionnaire is short and the interview would take a very brief time. I assure you that there is nothing commercial about this undertaking, and that the interview subjects will not find themselves referred to mailing lists (electronic or otherwise) or become the targets of follow-up sales calls. If you are interested in assuring the bona fides of this request, please respond directly to me; I will refer you onward to the faculty member who is directing the course. I would appreciate it if anyone willing to participate would use the following contact information: Scott Loney Pager: 1-800-800-8596 (this is an alphanumeric pager; leave a message with the attendant, and it will reach me quickly). Email: 75310.127@compuserve.com Please let me know if you have questions, want additional information or if you have advice on how we might proceed to find IP-telephony users willing to participate in this study. Thanks, Scott Loney ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Bell System Documentation Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:38:24 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool My boss surprised the heck out of me today. I've always known he was a packrat but this time he really shocked me. He handed me a book that's at least 500 pages and lo and behold, it's the Bell System Practices "Plant Series", Issue 1, June 1963 and other years/series. It's truly amazing to see the quality standards they held themselves to back in the good old days. I only wish Bell Atlantic could get a copy of this. Tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #40 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 19 09:51:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA09606; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:51:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:51:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803191451.JAA09606@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #41 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Mar 98 09:51:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 41 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Emerging Wireless Conference DC May 4,5 (Dave Hughes) Ten-digit Dialing Comes to Miami For All Local Calls (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Residential Broadband", George Abe (Rob Slade) Call For Papers: Cabling Systems Expo'98 Keynotes (Marc P. Duchesne) Telecom Update (Canada) #123, March 9, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) GSM PCMCIA Card Lets You Stay On-line (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Get Telecom Industry News via PointCast (Quyen Lam) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave.hughes@hicom.oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes) Subject: Emerging Wireless Conference DC May 4,5 Date: 18 Mar 1998 17:13:29 GMT Organization: Old Colorado City Communications Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com May 4th and 5th, 1998 Marvin Center, George Washington University Washington, DC Sponsored by National Science Foundation, IEEE, GWU, OCCC Go to www.gwu.edu/~cms/wireless or click on the top item in the http://wireless.oldcolo.com NSF Wireless Field Tests web site - for complete details, agenda, and online registration $295 if you register before April 1. $350 thereafter Includes 2 Continental Breakfasts, 2 Luncheons w/speakers Vigorous public policy, comparative economics, 3 world as well as domestic urban and rural, and educuational applications. Demonstration and displays of no-licence (no comm cost) spread spectrum Part 15 radios, newest Microwave technologies, new forms of satellite communications, the controversial issues surrounding the whole $2.25 Billion Universal Service Fund for school library telecom subsidies. And implications for the Virtual University and other educational instituions. Speakers include David Isenberg, author of the controversial "Rise of the Stupid Networks" in which 'smart wireless' will play a big future part in direct competition with Telephone Companies. Dale Hatfield, the Chief Technolist, Plans and Policy, FCC. Panelists wide ranging from Adam Powell (Freedom Forum) and Henry Normal (VITA) on 3d world connectivity (yeah, just call your local AT&T rep...), the MIT researcher who has proved we can have 'billions' of radios, not interferring with each other in the same space and communicating hundreds of megabits of data per second, expect to have the company now demontrating in Japan OC3 (that's 155mbps folks) radios no bigger than a dictionary there, 'distance learning' pros, Motorola and other newest satellite services folks. With a demo via satellite + ground Internet to tiny town in Montana, where 7th graders are doing real science and environmental analysis by wireless from the classroom to Big Spring Creek on Brewery Flats - field science by wireless being looked at for application to research labs and universities. And no-holds barred discussions with government officials from Commerce, FCC, Dept of Education. Yeah, this aint your plain 'telco competition' and 'how to used a wired web page for Good Education' conference. Its the future, here now, and why policy makers and Congressperns otta be paying a lot more attention to these technologies rather than another self-serving tv ad by Sprint, CTIA, AT&T, or MCI ... $295 including two lunches with speakers? You can't get that kind of deal in the largest hotels in DC, sans speakers. Press Passes available. Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.com ------------------------------ Subject: Ten-Digit Dialing Comes to Miami For All Local Calls Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:01:43 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Kate Berry Dow Jones News Service MIAMI (Dow Jones News) -- An explosion of wireless telephones, pagers and fax machines is forcing a new inconvenience on Miami consumers: having to dial 10 digits to make local phone calls. That's because Florida is running out of area codes. This year several cities, including Key West, Miami, Tampa, and St. Petersburg, are expected to implement new "overlay" plans that could put next-door neighbors -- even roommates -- in different area codes. As a result, callers will have to dial 10 digits even if they are calling a number within their own area code, a marked contrast from previous area code changes that were made along geographic lines. The overlay plan won unanimous approval by the Florida Public Service Commission last year, after a series of public hearings. The agency said Miami-Dade County, with 2.5 million residents, will need more area codes in the future and that an overlay plan is preferable to dividing the county along imaginary geographic lines. "The numbers in the 305 area code are just running out and all of the logical geographic splits have already been done," said Terry Reid, a regulatory analyst at the commission. Florida already has 11 area codes assigned to geographic areas. Maryland was the first state in the nation to require 10-digit local dialing, which began last year. A handful of overlay plans are in effect nationwide, although Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston have rejected proposals for 10-digit dialing. Miami-Dade County has a four-month test period before a new 786 area code and the 10-digit dialing plan take effect July 1. With the overlay plan, businesses and residents must reprogram home alarms and private business exchange systems, which require callers to dial a "9" to get an outside line. But existing businesses would avoid the added expense of changing letterheads. Consumer advocates say a better solution would be to assign separate area codes to wireless products, like cellular phones and pagers. But the Federal Communications Commission forbids segregating wireless services, saying it would be anticompetitive. Nearly 44 million U.S. households now own a wireless phone, a penetration rate of 43.6 percent, according to the Personal Communications Industry Association, which released new figures on the industry last week. The number of people with pagers jumped to 50 million last year, from 15 million in 1992. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:44:05 GMT Subject: "Residential Broadband", George Abe Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKRESBBD.RVW 971209 "Residential Broadband", George Abe, 1997, 1-57870-020-5, U$55.00/C$77.95/UK#50.99 %A George Abe %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 1-57870-020-5 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$55.00/C$77.95/UK#50.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 500 p. %T "Residential Broadband" The cover blurb says that this book provides a "comprehensive introduction to high-speed residential networks, integrating technical, business, and regulatory challenges." That description is mostly true, but not completely. Business, or, rather, the author's perception of business, predominates. The business that he considers to hold the high ground in the debate is television. Chapter one is entitled "Market Drivers" but is pretty much limited to TV. Even the discussion of the Web seems to see the technology as a sort of piecemeal video-on-demand. The writing style seems to be aimed at non-specialist managers, and this also makes the book suitable background reading for interested laypeople. Continuing on, chapter two reviews technical aspects of residential broadband service. We get back to television in chapter three with cable networks. Chapter four discusses the various forms of digital subscriber line provision over copper wire, while five and six look at fibre optic links to the home (or near it) and wireless networks. Very often discussions of this type of communications technology end with the feed to the home, but in chapter seven Abe does consider the needs and technologies for home network use. Chapter eight deals with issues of integrating existing network resources into the residential broadband scenario. The resources listed at the end of each chapter are separated by type, into books and articles, and even include numerous Internet references. This is all to the good, since even trade article references are of very limited use to those who are not deeply and professionally involved in the field. The level of technical explanation varies, although it is generally quite good, and suitable for any interested and intelligent reader, regardless of background. In a section on resistance in existing wiring, Abe notes the "skin effect," where electrical flow stops working in the centre of conductors. This explains the greater resistance at higher frequencies: the conductive cross-section is effectively reduced. The greater resistance explains why wiring is not used for high frequency broadcasts. The author does not explain how or why the skin effect occurs, keeping to a practical level which is probably what more readers will want, even if some enquiring minds are disappointed. Regulatory, and even some technical, issues are primarily limited to the American situation. Given the business orientation, this is a stronger limit on the audience for the book than would otherwise have been the case. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 ------------------------------ From: mduchesn@easynet.fr (Marc P. Duchesne) Subject: Call For Papers: Cabling Systems Expo'98 Keynotes Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1998 13:16:52 +0100 Organization: Consultant NTIC F I R S T A N N O U N C E M E N T CABLING SYSTEMS EXPO'98 International Exhibition & Conference on Cabling Systems and Networks Infrastructures Paris-Expo, Sept.15-17, 1998, France KEYNOTES FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS Fiberoptics, Wireless, and Copper Technologies for the 21st Century Cabling Systems Expo'98 aims at bringing in focus the huge changes taking place in Networks infrastructures technologies. The opportunity is to bring scientists, technologists, manufacturers and end-users together under this forum to interact and mutually benefit. Cabling Systems Expo'98 has therefore been planned with Technical Conferences, Keynotes, and exhibition. KEYNOTES PROGRAM: THE IN-MEDIAS FUTURE The topics being covered under Keynotes are listed below. The papers must be written for non-expert attendees: their goal is to show how the telecommunications technologies will change the Society and the way she lives ... (1) FIBEROPTICS TECHNOLOGIES Optical Networks for the 21th Century: All-Optical-Networks, Tera and Peta-bit/s networks, CATV networks, FTTH, FTTD, POF... Impact of the Photonics Technologies: Virtual Reality, Interactive Medias, Internet... (2) WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES Access Networks for the 21th Century: LMDS and MMDS local loops, satellites constellations ... Impact of the Wireless Technologies: worldwide communications, instant access to TV, Internet and telephone... (3) COPPER WIRE TECHNOLOGIES Local Area Networks for the 21th Century: Cat. 6, 7, 8, etc. technologies, Ethernet vs. IP/ATM... The Copper Empire: Fiber Rebels, the Cat. 5 survival, xDSL technologies... AUTHOR'S SCHEDULE: Deadline for Receipt of Abstracts: 30 of April 1998 Communication on Acceptance of Papers: 15th of May 1998 Deadline for Receipt of Final Manuscript: 31th of July 1998 Video, VideoConferencing and World-Wide-Web based presentations are recommended. For further details on the Keynotes Program and papers submissions, please contact : Mr. Marc P. Duchesne IT Consultant E-Mail: mduchesn@easynet.fr Mobile:+33(0)6-8041-9986 Phone: +33(0)1-6404-8229 Les Fans, F-77510 Villeneuve sur Bellot, France http://www.optoroute.com/fiber66 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:45:21 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #123, March 9, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 123: March 9, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Issues Final Price Cap Decision ** Residential Rates Up Again -- Maybe ** fONOROLA Joins LD Price War ** Department of Defence to Issue LD RFP ** ISP Protests Bell Service Delays ** 877 Introduction May Be Delayed ** ADSL in Prince Rupert ** Investors Boost Sudbury Network Plan ** Microcell Launches PCS Service in Victoria ** Shaw Sells Stake in Microcell ** Bell Offers LAN, WAN Management ** Bell Accused of Joint Marketing Violations ** BCI Withdraws From India Wireline Deal ** Infosat to Market Iridium's Global Paging ** Fundy Launches Paging Service ** Spar Puts SGA Unit on the Block ** CRTC to Hold Consultation in Saint John ** Convergence From Both Sides of the Fence ============================================================ CRTC ISSUES FINAL PRICE CAP DECISION: On March 5, the CRTC issued its final decision on the implementation of price cap regulation for the Stentor companies. Telecom Decision 98-2 includes: the contribution charges to be paid by LD and wireless providers, subsidy requirements for residential service, and the assignment of services to various price cap categories. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d982_0.txt RESIDENTIAL RATES UP AGAIN -- MAYBE: Decision 98-2 also includes "minor adjustments" - additional increases ranging from 14 cents to $1.19 a month -- to the residential rate hikes which were implemented on January 1. The telcos have until March 31 to decide whether to implement the adjustments retroactive to January 1, defer them to a later date, or not implement them at all. MT&T has already announced that it will defer its $1.19 increase. fONOROLA JOINS LD PRICE WAR: fONOROLA has introduced new residential toll rates, which range down to 9 cents/minute for evening and weekend calls in Canada. International rates begin at 20 cents/minute for UK calls anytime. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE TO ISSUE LD RFP: The Department of National Defence will issue an RFP this month for a five- to seven-year contract with a single LD provider, replacing the DND's private network. ISP PROTESTS BELL SERVICE DELAYS: John Nemanic, President of Toronto-based Internet Direct, has called for a Parliamentary Inquiry into "predatory trade practices" by Bell Canada. Nemanic accuses Bell of withholding or delaying installation of lines for ISPs and cross-subsidizing its own business Internet service. (See Telecom Update #122) 877 INTRODUCTION MAY BE DELAYED: ICB Toll Free News reports that the introduction of a third toll-free code, 877, may be delayed by one or two months past the scheduled April 5 start date. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has not yet decided how to handle 877 vanity numbers which match those already assigned in 800 and 888. http://icbtollfree.com ADSL IN PRINCE RUPERT: The CRTC has approved a four-month market trial of ADSL in Prince Rupert BC, conducted by municipally-owned Prince Rupert City Telephones. INVESTORS BOOST SUDBURY NETWORK PLAN: The Ontario government, AT&T Canada, Cisco Systems, and Sudbury Hydro will jointly invest $6 million to build SureNet, a high- speed digital network in the Sudbury region. MICROCELL LAUNCHES PCS SERVICE IN VICTORIA: Microcell's Fido digital PCS service is now available in the Greater Victoria region. SHAW SELLS STAKE IN MICROCELL: Shaw Communications has sold its 10% stake in Microcell Telecommunications for about $50 Million. Shaw's after-tax gain was $11.6 Million. BELL OFFERS LAN, WAN MANAGEMENT: Bell Canada is offering an "end-to-end" service to implement and support corporate local-area and wide-area networks. Advantage Enterprise Management is offered in partnership with SHL Systemhouse, an MCI subsidiary. BELL ACCUSED OF JOINT MARKETING VIOLATIONS: Clearnet Communications and AT&T Canada have complained to the CRTC that Bell Canada is violating restrictions on joint marketing of wireless and wireline services. The restrictions themselves are under review by Public Notice 97-21. (See Telecom Update #86) BCI WITHDRAWS FROM INDIA WIRELINE DEAL: Bell Canada International is withdrawing from a $1.55-Billion joint venture with India's Tata Group to offer wireline service in south India. BCI says it will continue partnership with Tata in a wireless venture. INFOSAT TO MARKET IRIDIUM'S GLOBAL PAGING: Vancouver-based Infosat Telecommunications will market Iridium's satellite- based paging service in Canada. (See Telecom Update #112) FUNDY LAUNCHES PAGING SERVICE: Fundy Communications has introduced a paging service in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI. Airtime prices start at $8/month. SPAR PUTS SGA UNIT ON THE BLOCK: Spar Aerospace is trying to sell its San Diego-based Satellilte Global Access unit. Spar says its $37 Million loss in 1997 was due entirely to red ink at SGA. CRTC TO HOLD CONSULTATION IN SAINT JOHN: The CRTC is inviting the public to an "informal consultation" on telecom and broadcasting matters in Saint John NB on March 29. To take part, register with the Commission's Halifax office (902-426-7997) by March 26. CONVERGENCE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE: The March issue of Telemanagement, available this week, explains what telcos and cablecos are doing to enter each other's business. ** "Voice Over Cable: How Practical Is It Today" reviews how cablecos are preparing to deliver local telephone service over coax. ** "Changing Channels: Inside Bell Canada's Cable TV Trial" looks at Bell's experimental cable TV offering in London, Ontario, and Repentigny, Quebec. For the contents of the March issue of Telemanagement, go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm98c-03.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:04:22 +0000 Organization: GIH - Global Information Highway Limited Subject: GSM PCMCIA Card Lets You Stay On-line Hi everybody, I've come across a new product last week which I believe solves a lot of problems with respect to keeping in touch with e-mail at home when travelling around in Europe and in GSM-compliant countries. I'm sure a lot of you are like me and travel quite a lot around the world. The most important thing for us is to be able to connect to base through the Internet wherever we go. I've come across so many problems when taking a laptop and PCMCIA modem around: different plug style, different dial-tone, problem finding a decent telephone line, problem finding a place where to plug the laptop in etc. Often, I ended up connecting through my hotel room, thus paying some extortionate telephone rates that hotels sometimes practise. My way round this was to use, whenever possible, a modem connected to a GSM phone, say around Europe. No more plug problems, no more trouble finding a phone line. The GSM International roaming agreements did the job. Well, Compaq has come up with what I think is something which will greatly promote the use of GSM mobile technology to remote-connect using a laptop: they're come up with a GSM PC Card Modem. It's basically a PCMCIA card with a small antenna which is powered by the laptop itself and can therefore emit a full 2W at 900MHz. It does 9.6kbit/s -> 38.4kbit/s , which is damn good for mobile data links. You can also use it as a fax, of course. The great thing is that it's so unobtrusive! No more playing with cables, and connecting the mobile handset to the laptop etc. etc. And I'm told the reception on it is actually better than most mobiles since the PCs power supply is meatier than for a mobile handset. If any of you guys are going around Europe or in areas which have GSM mobile coverage and which have roaming agreements with your mobile telephone operator, then I'd say "check this out". It's the Compaq SpeedPaq GSM PC Card modem and it works with all laptops. If any of you know of other manufacturers of such GSM cards, please give me a shout, thanks! Cheers, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |----> Global Information Highway Limited Phone: +44 (0)956 84 1113 | Always 60 seconds | E-mail: Fax : +44 (0)171 937 7666 | ahead of the past | Web: http://www.gih.com/ ------------------------------ Subject: Get Telecom Industry News via Pointcast Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:54:03 -0800 From: Quyen Lam Dear Colleague, As a telecommunications professional, we wanted to let you know that you can now get the latest industry news broadcast straight to your desktop with the PointCast Network Telecommunications Insider - now available for free at http://www.pointcast.com/special/telecom/mail1.html The Telecommunications Insider, developed with Coopers & Lybrand, broadcasts thought-provoking articles, analyses, and commentary to your desktop throughout the day. You'll receive late-breaking news, research and regulatory updates from respected industry organizations and publications, including Telecommunications Reports, the FCC, Financial Times and Technology Futures. Read about advances in telecommunications technology, get insights on industry legal issues, track innovations in the service sector and more. You'll also get world news, local news, stock updates and weather reports via PointCast from sources such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The service is absolutely free. There are no download or subscription fees. No hidden charges. Get your personalized newscast with the PointCast Network Telecommunications Insider. To get this free service today, visit us at: http://www.pointcast.com/special/telecom/mail1.html The Telecommunications Insider is completely free, so try it today with no risk and no obligation. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #41 ***************************** NOTE: ISSUES 42 AND 43 FOLLOW OUT OF SEQUENCE AFTER ISSUE 44 DUE TO MAILING PROBLEMS. From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 23 23:12:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA12324; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:12:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:12:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803240412.XAA12324@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #44 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 98 23:12:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 44 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet as Communications Medium and DNS Restructuring (Ronda Hauben) Sprint at it Again: Friday's Free (Tad Cook) WebPricer Available on Line (Monty Solomon) Wanted ASAP: Expert Witness for Mitnick Trial (E.S. Sim) Pacific Bell Tardy Area Code Translations (Clint Gilliland) London Numbers Changing Again in 2000 (Joseph Norton) Two-Letter Prefixes in NYC (Tim Mullen) -48V Power Supply (Anthony McCullough) Bell Logo Question (Ernst Smith) Central Office History (Ernst Smith) Internet Purchase Goes Sour (James Bellaire) Internet Phone and Fax (Al Niven) Books on History of Sprint? (Dave Zinkin) Position Announcement (David Bennett) I Have Four RJ11 Manual Switchboxes no Longer Needed (Chuck Gee) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Internet as Communications Medium and DNS Restructuring Date: 23 Mar 1998 22:10:19 GMT Organization: Columbia University It would be good to see comments and discussion on the issues involved in the proposed DNS rule The following draft is intended to encourage such discussion. The Internet as a Communication Medium and how that is not reflected in the proposal to restructure the DNS There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to change the way that Internet domain (site) names are given out, and thus to affect in an important way the future of the Internet. The proposal is at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm March 23 is the end of the time that one can submit comments on it to the ntia and comments up till then can be submitted electronically. It is interesting to look at the Framework that Ira Magaziner, the advisor to the President, has created looking at the future of the Internet. In the document called Framework, he fails to mention or consider that the Internet is an important new *communication* media. Instead he substitutes the word *commerce* for *communication* and sets out a framework for making the Internet into an important new means of commerce. In two sentences at the beginning of his document he says that "the Internet empowers citizens and democratizes societies" and then he goes on and spends the next 24 pages describing changes that have to come about to make the Internet into an electronic marketplace for business. Nowheres in the "Framework" does he discuss the fact that Netizens are those who come on line to contribute to the growth and the development of the Net. Instead Magaziner sees the Internet as "being driven ... by the private sector." If the "Framework" has *no* understanding of the ways that the Internet and Usenet contribute to and make possible new forms of *communication* between people, then there is no way that the proposal he has made for changing the DNS (domain name system) that assigns address and maintains the lookup tables can help to facilitate the communication that is so important as the essence of the Internet. The Proposal "Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Proposed Rule" is listed in the February 20, 1988 Federal Register. (And one can make comments on it till March 23. It is also online at the ntia web site.) Instead of examining how this *communication* has been developed and why it is so important, Magaziner is rushing to replace the current system (which was also developed without any analysis of the importance of the communication aspects of the Internet) with a "privatized" new form. In this "privatized" new form, he has proposed creating a "membership association" that will represent Internet users. So Internet users are not to represent themselves, but the U.S. government is proposing creating a rubber stamp organization to promote its attempt to change the Internet from a media for human-to-human communication into something that only conceives of users as "customers" of unregulated advertisers and other forms of business. This is hostile to the whole nature and development of the Internet. Magaziner claims that the "marketplace, not governments should determine technical standards." What he seems to have no knowledge of is how the government support for a standards process that wouldn't be dominated by the most powerful corporations, is some of how helpful standards have been developed. Instead Magaziner is trying to recast the standards development process to mirror the unhealthy situation that develops when the supposed "marketplace" is allowed to set standards. Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed "not for profit" corporation to take over the domain name system functions currently being administered by IANA (the root system and the appropriate databases). This new corporation he proposes will have a board of directors which will be made up of 5 members who are commercial users. There are proposed two directors from "a membership association of regional number registries", two members designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and two members from an association he is proposing be created representing domain name registeries and registrars, and 7 members from the membership organization he is creating. (Of which he says at least one of those board seats could be designated for an individual or entity engaged in non-commercial, not-for-profit use of the Internet, and one for individual end users. The remaining seats could be filled by commercial users, including trademark holders." Thus he is basing his proposal on to-be-created associations that will not be based on the Internet, but created to provide for commercial control of the domain naming system. The proposal is an effort to change the nature and character of the Internet from a means of communication to a means of "commerce." It is almost like claiming that the advertisers in a newspaper should have an organization that will assure their control of the newspaper, and ignoring the fact that the newspaper exists to present the news, editorials, etc. The Internet has been developed and continues to be for most of its users, a place where one can communicate with others, whether by email, posting to Usenet newsgroups, putting up a www site, etc. As such it is the nature of this communication that has to be understood and protected in any proposals to change key aspects of how the Internet is adminstered. Also the Internet makes possible communication with people around the world. Thus creating a board where commercial businesses are the main controlling interests is hostile to facilitating this communication. While Magaziner's proposal is being distributed electronically, it gives no indication of where it came from, and why it fails to be based on the most essential aspects of the Internet. Why doesn't the advisor making up such a proposal ask for discussion on line and participate in the discussion so as to be able to create a proposal that will reflect the needs and interests of those who are online rather than a narrow group of commercial interests. The Judges in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia hearing the CDA case (the Communications Decency Act) and the Supreme Court Judges affirming their decision recognized that the Internet is an important new means of mass communication. The Judges in the Federal District Court case wrote: "The Internet is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication." Judge Dalzell, in his opinion, wrote explaining how "The Intenet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails....We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates....There is also a compelling need for public education about the benefits and dangers of this new medium and Government can fill that role as well." However, there is no indication in either of Magaziner's proposals, the longer "Framework" proposal, or the specific proposal to restructure the DNS, that he is interested in or has considered the benefits of the Internet for the public of the U.S. or elsewhere around the world. Instead he is only putting forward the wishes of certain commercial entities who want to grab hold of the Internet for their own narrow purposes. By restructuring the domain naming system in a way that can put it up for control by a few commercial interests, Magaziner's proposal is failing to protect the autonomy that the medium confers to ordinary people, as the court decision in the CDA case directed U.S. government officials. The ARPANET and Internet (up till 1995) developed because of an Acceptible Use Policy encouraging and supporting communication and limiting and restricting what commercial interests were allowed to do. As such it developed as an important means of people being able to utilize the regenerative power of communication to create something very new and important for our times. Pioneers with a vision of the future of the Internet called for it to be made available to all as a powerful education medium, not for it to be turned into something that would mimic the worst features of a so called "democratic nation" which reduces the rights and abilities of its citizens to those of so called "customers" of unregulated and unaccountable commercial entities. The Internet and the Netizens who populate the Internet have created something much more important than the so called commercial online "marketplace" that the Framework is trying to create. Netizens have created an online international marketplace of ideas and discussion which is need to solve the complex problems of our times. The process of "privatizing" what is a public trust will only result in more problems and fights among the commercial entities that are vying for their own self interest, rather than having any regard for the important communications that the Internet makes possible. Both the government processes and purposes in proposing the DNS restructuring do not ground themselves on the important and unique nature of the Internet. Proposals and practices to serve the future of the Internet and the Netizens who contribute to that future, can only be crafted through a much more democratic process than that which led to the current proposal. There is a need to examine the processes that have actually given birth to and helped the Net to grow and flourish, and to build on those processes in creating the ways to solve the problems of the further development of the Net. Sadly Magaziner's proposal has ignored that process, and thus we are left with a proposal that doesn't reflect the democratic and communicative nature of the Internet and so can only do harm to its further development and cause ever more problems. Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com Comments and Discussion needed! Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for sending this over to me, Ronda. I hope there will be some worthwhile responses as a result. I get the very distinct impression that the government is not at all happy with the traditional use of the Internet as a people's message and information exchange. It simply causes too many people to be knowledgeable in too many areas; it allows for the very rapid exchange of news and ideas; and ideas, you know, have consequences and can sometimes be very dangerous. If *you* were a top level government bureaucrat, would *you* want news of what you were doing and planning to do to be common knowledge among the citizens before you had had a chance to pipe it all through the spin-doctor and he in turn had been able to spoon-feed it to his print media pals? Listen up Ronda: these newcomer .com sites on the net could not give an iota about the history of the Internet, Usenet, or anything else about what has made this medium what it is today. All they care about is what they heard from somewhere else, that there was lots of money to be made by peddling their wares here. It only makes sense to me that the government is going to promote business on the net with the assumption that if enough of them get on here, eventually it will drive the rest of us off completely, either from the noise and conges- tion, or because so many bad things which happen here get publicized extensively enough that the rest of us get totally discredited for having any connection with the net at all. Is there anything left to Usenet at all? I haven't checked it in months. I know that a lot of formerly very active, very lively and intelligent newsgroups have pretty much gone down the tubes because of spammers. In a sense, the spammers have succeeded where the government failed: they got a lot of netters to shut up and go back to using their computers to balancing their checkbook or file away recipies for meatloaf. I think it is equally obvious the newspapers are going to support the concept of businesses taking over the web. Things have been getting a bit too close for comfort for them also where this net is concerned. Their circulation is down, people are discussing things the newspapers had no part in telling us, and they are beginning in general to lose the grip they had on things for many years. Have you yet to see a newspaper 'computer columnist' ever talk about anything *substantial* regarding the net? The two who have those duties for the {Chicago Sun- Times} and the {Chicago Tribune} are both idiots. They print letters daily from people telling about bad things on the net and have yet to ever print a letter or essay from a long-time, experienced system administrator discussing how things really work. The latest insult to one's intelligence appeared in the {Sun-Times} a couple weeks ago under the headline, "Mother's Nightmare About the Internet Comes True". It seems that Mother's nine year old daughter had been the victim of some pedophile (so Mother claimed) on the net. The whole item was fraught with lies, distortions of truth, etc. A few pages further, the computer columnist was busy chattering about some new software program to work with home shopping on the internet. No Ronda, don't expect anything realistic or resembling the truth about the net from the government or their public relations staffs at the newspapers. I tell people I have been involved in one way or another with the net for about eighteen years now, and they give me just a blank look. They have no idea what that means. I had one lady even tell me to my face I had to be a liar; after all, everyone knows it started in 1995 when companies started putting up web pages and stuff like that. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint at it Again: Friday's Free Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:13:40 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) I saw this today on Tipworld from Wired News. Looks similar to the old Friday Free program, but this time they say it is for domestic calls only. TODAY'S SPONSOR: Sprint Fridays Free from Sprint. Enjoy more business and more savings until the year 2000 when you spend at least $50 a month. We help your business do more business http://www.tipworld.com/arts.cgi?sprintfriday0227 Tad Cook Seattle, WA tad@ssc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that precious ... well when you consider how well that rip-off did for them the first time around, it is not surprising they would try it again. How long do you think it will be until they start sending out the cancellation letters to the customers who try to make more than one or two short calls for free on Friday? I wonder if they will use that same deadbeat to take -- or rather, dodge -- calls that they used last time. Remember him? He sent out all those letters to customers they did not want tossing them off the program after a month or so; then no matter what time of day or night you called seeking an explanation he was never there. Any of you who feel like defaulting one or two of your lines to them on one-plus for a couple months to see what happens this time please be sure to write back with your experiences. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:12:53 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: WebPricer Available on Line INNOVATION Let your cursor do the walking Web site lets consumers find best long-distance deal for them By Jennifer Oldham, 03/22/98 Despite moves by long-distance companies to simplify their rates, signing up for a long-distance plan that best suits your calling needs still requires some homework. Simplified pricing gives consumers a better sense of how to compare one rate with another, but it doesn't eliminate the need to comparison shop. It also hasn't sounded a wake-up call to the one-third of Americans who have no idea what long-distance plan they're using, analysts say. To encourage consumers to shop around for the cheapest rates, the Washington-based Telecommunications Research and Action Center rolled out WebPricer this month. The Internet-based tool allows consumers to compare seven long-distance companies' rates for the numbers they call most often. WebPricer is available on the center's Web page at http://www.trac.org. ''The recent movement toward simplicity in pricing has been in response, in large part, to the fact that there was a need for Web services like this,'' said Boyd Peterson, a telecommunications analyst at Yankee Group, a Boston-based research firm. ''The goal is to make it as simple as possible for consumers to make a choice without them having to get a calculator out.'' The service is Trac's second shot at designing a Web-based tool for comparing long-distance rates. The first system was based on the Java programming language and wasn't compatible with many computer systems, said Geoff Mordock, a research associate at the center. WebPricer runs on most browsers, making it easier for more consumers to access it. The system was designed to provide a range of long-distance rates to consumers in the event a pending Federal Communications Commission order requiring long-distance companies not to file tariffs goes into effect, Mordock said. The FCC order is awaiting review by the US District Court in Washington. San Francisco-based Salestar, the company Trac teamed with to build and operate WebPricer, has an interest in ensuring it can obtain long-distance companies' tariffs, since it makes software that tracks those rates. For now, carriers are submitting tariffs directly to Salestar, Mordock said. Consumers can use WebPricer to compare seven long-distance carriers - including AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and GTE - by entering their area code, the first three digits of their phone number, and the area codes and prefixes for the numbers they call most often. The template also asks users to fill in what time of day they call these numbers. WebPricer compares rates for state-to-state calls only and not those between area codes in the same state, which is important to note. For instance, a rate comparison for a 30-minute evening call from Studio City, Calif., to Denver found that LCI International offered the lowest price with its LCI Difference plan, at $2.70. Sprint had the highest price through its MTS Basic Sprint Service plan, at $5.70, the same price AT&T offered through its True Reach Savings Plan. Salestar updates the database monthly by choosing up to five of the lowest-priced rate plans for each carrier (including the basic rate schedule for each company). There are several things to remember when using WebPricer. It does not include rates for WorldCom, Frontier or the approximately 400 resellers who buy long-distance minutes at wholesale rates from major carriers and resell them to consumers. It does not include monthly charges. The service also does not reflect special promotions. Long-distance carriers say that's why they recommend consumers use WebPricer for preliminary research but call them directly to ask for more detailed information. Jennifer Oldham is a member of the Los Angeles Times staff. This story ran on page C04 of the Boston Globe on 03/22/98. Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:30:13 -0500 From: E.S. Sim Subject: Wanted ASAP: Expert Witness For Mitnick Trial Computer Expert Witness Needed *Immediately*. A computer expert is needed immediately to testify as an expert witness in an ongoing criminal matter in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Kevin Mitnick is seeking a highly credentialed expert in computer security, telecommunications, system and network administra- tion to testify in this highly publicized computer "hacking" case. This will be a groundbreaking case and is expected to attract significant media coverage. Testimony will be required as early as March 30, 1998 in Los Angeles, California. Further testimony will be needed at trial, later this year. Expert witness fees will be paid by the federal court. Qualified candidates must have an advanced degree and be knowledgeable in DOS, Windows, SunOS, VAX/VMS, and Internet operations. Experience with cellular telephone networks is a plus. Previous expert testimony and/or publication are preferred. Qualified candidates please contact Mr. Mitnick though his appointed defense counsel, Donald C. Randolph, Esq. at (310) 395-7900. ------------------- Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site -- http://www.kevinmitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:38:42 -0500 From: clintcrg@aol.com (Clint Gilliland) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Pacific Bell Tardy Area Code Translations The new Pacific Bell/SBC Area Code, 925, for the Walnut Creek, California (split from 510) area has been permissive now for over a week yet Pacific Bell/SBC does not recognize 925 from the Palo Alto or Sunnyvale, CA wire centers. This is Pacific Bell's OWN Area Code. I quote from: http://www.pacbell.com/about-pb/areacodes/areacodes-510.html "When Does The Change Take Place? You can start using the new 925 area code on March 14, 1998. Until September 12, 1998, both area codes will still work in the area covered by the new change. After that, you'll need to use the new area code or your calls will not go through. " I had trouble when the new Utah Area Code went permissive. Pacific Bell took several weeks to get the translations working. I was told that the FCC only requires the translations to be in place on the mandatory date. How are we to get our PBXs setup? Pacific Bell does not allow 10XXX 1 925 to reach the carrier. But our carrier, C&W, can also be reached by 10223#, then a dial tone. The call to the 1 925 341-0925 test number goes through immediately through our carrier, directly. I remember when all new Area Codes or routes were cutover at 2:01 AM (EST) throughout the country. Why are the new Area Codes not setup for translation BEFORE the permissive date? Clint Gilliland ------------------------------ From: Joseph Norton Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:03:41 -0500 Subject: London Numbers Changing Again in 2000 LONDON (AP) -- Codes for London's phone numbers are to change again in 2000, marking in some cases the third change in seven years. London's current two codes, 0171 for inner London and 0181 for the rest (44-171 and 44-181 for foreign callers), will be replaced by a single code, 020, officials announced Thursday. Northern Ireland, the Welsh capital of Cardiff, and three English cities, Coventry, Portsmouth and Southampton, also will get new codes, starting 02 plus another identifying digit. The changes, effective April 22, 2000, are because of increased demand. ------------------------------ From: tim@panix.com (Tim Mullen) Subject: Two-Letter Prefixes in NYC Date: 23 Mar 1998 01:58:26 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Does anyone know, or know where I might look, what all the old two-letter prefixes were that mapped to a geographical area in the 212 area code? Like MUx-xxxx stood for Murray Hill. I've got a 463 number, and a few vintage phones that I'd like to label with an old-style number. Since I live in the Chelsea district of Manhattan, it can't be anything as simple as CH for CHelsea. In fact, since I've only had this number for seven years or so, I imagine it doesn't map to anything at all. But figgered I'd give it a try. (HOllywood works, but doesn't make much sense. :) Tim Mullen --------------------------------------------------------------- Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. --- finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- ------------------------------ From: Anthony McCccullough Subject: -48V Power Supply Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:18:02 -0500 Organization: sparks!networking Reply-To: amccull@erols.com I recently acquired Pairgain's PG-PLUS which is an HDSL/POTS multiplexor. The supplier assumed I would have a -48V power supply. He does not sell them but said he would try to find me a source. In the mean time, I would like to locate at least one source of my own. The product I envision is a Dual -48V rack mount power supply with a built-in UPS(if possible). BACKGROUND I have six analog phone lines each going to up to nine ships at each pier. Each ship uses all six of their lines. I need to supply a two pair E1 circuit (HDSL/Ethernet bridge) for their local area network. To make room for the new E1 circuit I am multiplexing their six voice lines over one pair, using the HDSL over two pair and leaving three spare pair. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Many Thanks in advance. TCC Anthony P. McCullough http://www.erols.com/amccull/index.htm email;internet: amccull@erols.com tel;work: 703-313-5764 note: The McCullough Family, Virginia ------------------------------ From: es008d@biko.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) Subject: Bell Logo Question Date: 23 Mar 1998 06:53:38 GMT Organization: University of Rochester What are the legal rules for usage of the "Bell" name and logo? For example, with advent of local competition a ILEC might decide that the Bell logo, which they abandoned after divestiure, might have some (sentimental) marketing value. Can that RBOC resume usage of the Bell name and logo? Is there an online source for LATA maps and maps of the LECs service territory? (Like the LATA map on page 18 of the 1998 Fronter/Rochester telephone directory) What is a DMH in the CO? Is a it some kind of switch? ------------------------------ From: es008d@biko.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) Subject: Central Office History Date: 23 Mar 1998 06:54:46 GMT Organization: University of Rochester I've noticed that quite a few COs are rectangular windowless buildings with a large bell logo. Where these buildings designed dictated by the use of old mechanical equipement or did Ma Bell have a generic blueprint for CO construction? Has their design changed in recent years? Aside from the use of digital switches, how has space utilitzation within the CO changed? Are there still large bundles of copper waving their way through the CO or has it all been replaced by fiber? And what exactly is in a CO? Does an unused CO building have any commercial value for non-telecom purposes? Is there a good source (online or in the library) on the history of Central Offices? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:10:00 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Internet Purchase Goes Sour Looks like selling stuff on the internet can be deadly. From WFRN.COM/News.html on Saturday March 21st: A Kosciusko County (Indiana) man could get the death penalty if convicted of killing a 17 year old from Vermont with a package bomb. 35 year old Chris Dean is accused of building a pipe bomb and sending it U.P.S. from Columbus Ohio to Christopher Marquis. Employer records show Dean, who was a truck driver, was in Columbus the day the package was sent. Federal investigators say Dean felt cheated after reportedly buying some electronic equipment from Marquis over the internet. Dean will make his first court appearance in Kosciusko County Monday. Marquis was killed Thursday when the package blew up as he opened it in his home. His mother was seriously injured. ------------------------------ From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Internet Phone and Fax Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:01:03 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Planet Telecommunications, Inc http://207.25.36.252/index.html Will be http://www.PlanetTel.com in 2 weeks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:17:11 -0500 From: davezinkin@aol.com (DaveZinkin) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Books on History of Sprint? Hello! I've recently started taking a college course in data communications and networking, and have been assigned to a group whose class project will be a case study of Sprint. My portion of the project will be a brief (3-5 pages, about 4-5 minutes of discussion) history of Sprint. Can anyone recommend books that might be of some use, either specific to Sprint or general telecom histories that would contain pertinent information? The libraries in this area aren't of much use so far; I've seen Sprint's web site and have located a few pertinent journal articles, but I'd like to include a book or two and the ones I've found locally aren't very helpful. Your help will be much appreciated. Thanks! David Zinkin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I liked them better when they were in the railroad business using the name Southern Pacific Railroad. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:59:22 -0500 From: David Bennett Subject: Position Announcement Assistant/Associate Professors COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS Robert Morris College Pittsburgh, PA The School of Communications and Information Systems (SCIS) seeks candidates to help implement its innovative undergraduate Communications Skills Program and new interdisciplinary Master's program in communications and information science/systems. REQUIREMENTS Ph.D. degree in relevant field and will be competitive for a joint appointment in Communications and in Computer and Information Systems. Evidence of experience in bridging the disciplines of rhetoric/communication theory and information theory; record of excellent teaching, service, and scholarship; business and/or corporate experience. Interdisciplinary background and supporting credentials in more than one of the following fields: information management, systems theory, systems analysis, software applications, multimedia, computer assisted instruction and presentations, distance learning, applied linguistics, and/or communication law and ethics. Assist in implementing its innovative undergraduate Communications Skills Program and new interdisciplinary master's program in communications and information science/systems. Teaching assignments may include evening and Saturday schedules. Robert Morris College is consistently named among the top ten specialty schools in the USA. RMC offers undergraduate and graduate degree programs to about 5,000 students at two locations in Pittsburgh, PA. Submit a letter of interest, resume, three references, and statement delineating interdisciplinary experience in appropriate fields to: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES ROBERT MORRIS COLLEGE 881 NARROWS RUN ROAD MOON TOWNSHIP, PA 15108 Robert Morris College is an equal opportunity employer. For more information, contact Dr. John O'Banion Head, Department of Communications Robert Morris College obanion@robert-morris.edu ------------------------------ From: gee@teleport.com (Chuck Gee) Subject: I Have Four RJ11 Manual Switchboxes no Longer Needed Date: 23 Mar 1998 10:36:34 -0800 Organization: Teleport Internet Services I have four (4) RJ11/RJ12 manual rotary ABCD switchboxes that have never been used. They are still in the orignal "retail display boxes" and wrapped in bubble wrap. These have one input and four outputs (hence the ABCD). They are manual, with a rotary switch; and look exactly like a printer switchbox. Please make me an offer for the lot (including shipping charges). I am in another field now, and will never have a use for them (hopefully). I can ship UPS or Mail. Thanks. gee@teleport.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #44 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 23 23:28:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA13181; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:28:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:28:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199803240428.XAA13181@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #43 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 98 21:32:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 43 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Area Code 831 on Way (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Web Databases with Cold Fusion 3", John Burke (Rob Slade) Telecom Update (Canada) #125, March 23, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) How Many Incoming Lines? (John Osmon) Mobile Phones Cause Over 2,200 Accidents in Japan (Monty Solomon) 3-Line and 4-Line Telephones (David A. Burton) New ROLM Remailer (Christopher W. Boone) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Area Code 831 on Way Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:50:29 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Split from overloaded 408 will affect most central coast residents By John Woolfolk Mercury News Staff Writer The countdown is on for central coast residents to start memorizing their new phone number, which will now begin "8-3-1." That's right, 831. This summer, the new area code replaces the 408 that has been in use since Eisenhower was president. Proposed a year ago and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission last month, the 831 area code will officially go into place July 11 for most of Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties. Code changes do not affect local and long distance phone rates. "Whatever the rates were then, they'll be the same now," said Chris Kniestedt, spokesman for the California-Nevada Code Administration in San Ramon. However, phone customers will have to have their stationery, business cards and address books changed to reflect the new number. Forgetful callers will be allowed a three-month grace period in which they can still get through by dialing the old 408 code. For another three months, a phone company robot will politely remind them of the new code. Those who live near the jagged area code boundary need not worry about what number to use. If they are affected by the change, they will be notified through phone bill inserts, Kniestedt said. As has been the case with the recent splits of the 510 to 925 codes in the East Bay and 415 to 650 on the Peninsula, the new 831 code was made necessary by the explosion of new numbers for faxes, modems and cellular phones. Each area code can handle 7.9 million phone numbers. Area code 408 was created in 1959, when it was split from 415, one of the state's three original codes introduced in 1947. Today, 408 has 5.7 million numbers, and added nearly one million new ones in 1996. Without the 831 split, 408 would fill up by early 1999. For now, Santa Clara County callers are off the hook. San Jose, Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Santa Clara, Los Gatos and Gilroy will keep their 408 code. But another 408 split is already in the works and expected to go into effect in less than two years. A number hasn't been determined for that yet. "The 408 area is already exhausted," Kniestedt said. "We're already planning relief." ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:25:45 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Web Databases with Cold Fusion 3", John Burke Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWDWCF3.RVW 980111 "Web Databases with Cold Fusion 3", John Burke, 1998, 0-07-913092-5, U$49.95 %A John Burke %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-913092-5 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$49.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 453p. CD-ROM %T "Web Databases with Cold Fusion 3" Often a book with this kind of title is a sales brochure, or documentation replacement, for the eponymous product. I'm not sure that this book can fall into either of those two slots, since, even having read it, I still don't know what Cold Fusion really is. Cold Fusion appears to be a kind of low level middleware, taking CGI (Common Gateway Interface) forms data, submitting it, along with SQL (Structured Query Language) commands, to various database programs, and formatting the results in HTML (HyperText Markup Language) for display on Web pages. But in providing short overviews of a whole host (you should pardon the expression) of other programs, they seem to have missed out on providing a description of what Cold Fusion is and does, and, frankly, nothing in the rest of the book interests me severely enough to make me want to install the 30 day eval version provided and try to figure out for myself what it is. Do we find a description in Chapter one? No, we have a quick and dirty short course in HTML. Chapter two starts off with a brief and somewhat misleading "history" of DOS and Windows. A number of statements in the piece are flatly wrong. We may be able to blame the limitation of the Digital Alpha processor to 32 bits on a typo: certainly the sentence makes more sense if you substitute the correct architecture size. It then goes on to explain how to install Windows NT. Chapter three tells you how to install the Microsoft Internet Information Server, Netscape's Enterprise Server, O'Reilly's Website Professional, MS SQL Server, and Cold Fusion. You can generate an automated email with what you learn in chapter four, although it's not much more sophisticated than what you can do with Pegasus Mail. Chapters five through nine give brief descriptions of MS Access, Visual dBASE, Personal Oracle 7, Paradox, and Visual FoxPro. Most of these databases, and most others, can generate HTML content rather simply by using the proper report generation commands. Chapter ten moves up a level in the database world and mentions Cold Fusion specifically, but still doesn't give much more than some isolated examples of Cold Fusion commands in HTML. Chapter eleven tells us of new features in Cold Fusion 3, but *still* doesn't tell us what Cold Fusion is! In chapter twelve we learn what SQL is (in case we had forgotten since chapter ten), and even get a few Cold Fusion "templates" that use it. These appear to be simply SQL commands with some Cold Fusion commands prepended. Chapter thirteen does the same thing at a higher level, as does fourteen. Fifteen introduces Crystal Reports and sixteen adds graphics from Crystal Reports. Finally, in chapter seventeen, we start to look at programming in Cold Fusion. (It still doesn't tell us what Cold Fusion is, although it says that Cold Fusion isn't a programming language as such.) Along with chapters eighteen and nineteen there is a lot of looking at conditionals and loops. Chapter twenty looks at Javascript. Chapter twenty-one looks at frames. As is usual with many technical works, each chapter starts with a listing of contents. Unfortunately, the listing bears no relation to the list of sub-topics given in the table of contents, no relation to any level of header to be found within the chapter, and, as far as I can tell, very little relation to reality. Magic seems to play a large role in all of this. Client/server is magic. TCP/IP is magic. Perhaps they figure that the reader will magically figure out what they are talking about. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKWDWCF3.RVW 980111 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:03:12 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #125, March 23, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 125: March 23, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Payphone Swipe Card Charges Approved ** BC Tel Free to Apply for Broadcasting License ** Stentor Wants Affiliate Rule Revoked ** Court Rejects Pay Equity Complaints ** MTS Launches ADSL Service ** QuebecTel Cuts ADSL Trial Rates ** Cantel Decentralizes, Closes Call Center ** Stentor Offers Network ACD ** BC Tel Tests Internet-Based Dispatching ** Canadian Tire Joins LD Wars ** Nortel Buys Internet Equipment Maker ** Prima Buys Call Center Integrator ** ITU Approves Standards for Disabled ** Equipping Call Centers for Web Communications ============================================================ PAYPHONE SWIPE CARD CHARGES APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 98- 281 sets prices for access by phone card providers to Stentor payphone swipe card readers. The initial charge is $700,000; usage charges total 30 cents per swipe. The Commission also tells Stentor to file a tariff for "enhanced swipe card access," which would provide the functions available to Stentor calling card users. (See Telecom Update #71, 85) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98281_0.txt BC TEL FREE TO APPLY FOR BROADCASTING LICENSE: The Federal Court has rejected a bid by Rogers Communications for a judicial review of the 1997 Federal order-in-council permitting BC Tel, which is majority owned by U.S.-based GTE, to apply for a broadcasting license. (See Telecom Update #106) STENTOR WANTS AFFILIATE RULE REVOKED: Since 1990, the Stentor telcos have been prohibited from providing long distance voice services for resale through affiliated companies. On March 16, Stentor asked the CRTC to scrap the rule, on the grounds that the problems which this rule was intended to prevent no longer exist. COURT REJECTS PAY EQUITY COMPLAINTS: On March 17, the Federal Court overruled a 1996 decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission referring pay equity complaints against Bell Canada to a Human Rights Tribunal. (See Telecom Update #69, 71) MTS LAUNCHES ADSL SERVICE: Manitoba Telecom Services now provides high-speed Internet access via ADSL to customers in two-thirds of Winnipeg for $44.95/month (residential) or $99.95/month (business). Rates decline to $27.95 and $82.95 in the fourth year of service. (See Telecom Update #104) QUEBECTEL CUTS ADSL TRIAL RATES: CRTC Telecom Order 98-280 approves an extension of Quebec-Telephones ADSL market trial to September 1, 1998. This stage of the trial will test lower prices: single line residential and business access, respectively, will be $15 and $40 a month; a multiline connection will be $100/month. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1998/8740/q1-205.html CANTEL DECENTRALIZES, CLOSES CALL CENTER: Rogers Cantel is shifting responsibility for sales, advertising, and public relations to its three regions: Eastern Canada (Regional President -- Francis Fox), Ontario (Regional President -- Dekkers Davidson), and Western Canada (Executive Vice- President -- Lynda Cranston). (See Telecom Update #97) ** Cantel has also closed the 100-employee customer service call center it opened in Ottawa last year. (See Telecom Update #119) STENTOR OFFERS NETWORK ACD: Stentor companies now offer Network CTI, a network-based call center system with computer telephone integration. Network CTI was developed by Connectivity, a Bell Canada-NBTel joint venture based in Saint John NB. ** Manitoba Telecom System also offers Network Based Call Centre, which it developed together with IBM Canada. BC TEL TESTS INTERNET-BASED DISPATCHING: BC Tel is testing a wireless data dispatch system that uses the Internet to send data to a specially equipped cellphone. Wireless Internet Dispatching was developed by Vancouver-based InStep Mobile Communications. CANADIAN TIRE JOINS LD WARS: Canadian Tire now offers its customers off-peak calling for 10 cents/minute (Canada) or 20 cents (U.S.), as well as a "twelfth month free," based on average billing of the previous 11 months. NORTEL BUYS INTERNET EQUIPMENT MAKER: Nortel has paid US$290 Million to acquire Aptis Communications, a Massachusetts- based developer of Internet access equipment for telecom carriers. PRIMA BUYS CALL CENTER INTEGRATOR: Montreal-based Prima has acquired InterLogic Systems of Mississauga, Ontario. Both companies are call center and computer telephony integrators. ITU APPROVES STANDARDS FOR DISABLED: The International Telecommunication Union has adopted Recommendations to improve the communications ability of the deaf or speech- impaired. The new standards apply to text phones, use of different alphabets, and integration of text communication into multimedia systems. EQUIPPING CALL CENTERS FOR WEB COMMUNICATIONS: In the April issue of Telemanagement, available this week, Martin Prunty explains how call centers can be equipped to field inquiries from the Internet. Also in the April Telemanagement: ** Hey Kids! Make Big Money as a Cellphone Auditor! by Ian Angus ** Is There a LAN-Based PBX in Your Company's Future? by John Riddell For the contents of the April issue of Telemanagement, go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm98c-04.html To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: josmon@rufus.highfiber.com (John Osmon) Subject: How Many Incoming Lines? Date: 23 Mar 1998 18:52:31 GMT Organization: HighFiber Networks, Inc. Does anyone have any good pointers on books/web-sites/programs that can help me determine an "optimum" number of phone lines to use for incoming calls? I'm pretty sure that this has been discussed here before, but can't seem to find the right keywords to find it in the archives, and nothing in the FAQ seems to jump out at me either. I believe someone has posted information similar to this in the past (an excel spreadsheet for DID lines comes to mind), but am not certain. Any pointers to relevant information would be appreciated. I don't mind doing the work, I just can't find any information regarding models, etc. that would be useful. :-) A little more info for those that have read this far: I work with and ISP occasionally, and I believe that they have over-subscribed for incoming lines. I have a good deal of information concerning call frequency, duration, etc. I'd like to be able to analyze this information to determine if we can drop one of the channelized T1 circuits or if it really is required. I suspect that it isn't, but would like to have some type of model that I can use to confirm my suspicions. Beyond all of that, I've realized that I don't have *any* idea how to model the situation, and would like to add this skill to my abilities. You never know when this might be useful! John Osmon Between the Velvet Lies, josmon@rigozsaurus.com There's a truth that's hard as Steel. - Holy Diver, Ronnie James Dio ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:20:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mobile Phones Cause Over 2,200 Accidents in Japan TOKYO (Reuters) - As if narrow streets and too many cars weren't enough of a headache for Japanese drivers, a new menace has appeared in the form of the mobile phone. Drivers using mobile phones caused 2,297 traffic accidents in 1997, killing 25 and injuring more than 3,000, the National Police Agency said Thursday in the first survey of its kind. The total number of accidents was 780,399. Nearly half the phone-related accidents took place while drivers were trying to answer the phone, followed by 27.6 percent as they were trying to make a call, and finally 16.4 percent while they were speaking on the phone, a police spokesman said. In most cases, drivers using phones smashed into the car ahead of them. A spokesman at NTT Docomo, one of Japan's largest mobile phone companies, said that people should think carefully about the manners of using mobile phones. "We definitely recommend that people not make calls from their cars and suggest they pull over to answer," he said. A large majority, or 78.5 percent, of the phone-related accidents were caused by male drivers, police said. Japan, with an estimated 36 million mobile phones in use, is the second in the world after the United States. ------------------------------ From: David A. Burton Subject: 3-Line and 4-Line Telephones Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 20:22:42 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net (not "key system" phones) Over the past decade or so, I've bought about a half-dozen Radio Shack 4-line telephones (model 411, with intercom but no speakerphone). They were quite expensive, yet some have failed completely, one still works for lines 3 and 4 (only), one sometimes requires switching to another line and then back to pick up, and the very last fully-working phone has just recently started "cutting out" when jostled. [IMO, the model number shouldn't be 411, it should be 911!] Radio Shack doesn't make the model 411 anymore, but they still make the very similar model 412, which adds a built-in speakerphone. However, the model 412 costs a whopping $200 each, and I have no reason to suppose that it will be more reliable than the 411. I need new phones. GE (really Thompson), AT&T, and Panasonic all apparently make fancy 3-line and/or 4-line phones. However, they are kind of hard to find, and they are very expensive: typically $160-$190 each, except that the 3-line GE phone (model 2-9439) is about $100. There may be other brands, too. Would anyone care to recommend (or warn against!) a 3-line or 4-line phone, or a good source to buy such phones at a good price? Features that I'd like to find: o Rugged and reliable! o Reasonable price! o Per-line "in use" LEDs o Low REN (ringer equivalence number) o Mute and hold buttons o "Flash" button o Redial or busy-dial button o Speakerphone would be nice but not essential o Intercom and/or page feature would be nice but not essential o Fancy display showing caller ID, call length, etc. isn't essential o Prefer that it *not* be made in Peoples Republic of China o *NOT* Radio Shack! -Dave Burton or H. Tel: 1-919-481-0098 W. Tel: 1-919-481-6658 or 1-919-233-8128 Burton Systems Software: http://www.burtonsys.com/ "TLIB: Professional Version Control at a Personal Price" P.S. - My news feed is currently kaput. I'll do an occasional dejanews search for replies, but I'll nevertheless be grateful if you Cc me on your reply, via email. Thanks. -DB ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: New ROLM Remailer Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:29:10 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company/ABC Radio Networks Engineering A new ROLM remailer is now up and flying for those with ROLM legacy and Siemens systems. It is not sponsored by NRUG nor is it closed to NRUG members only. Contact me via email if you want the address ... and how to subscribe ... (NO I don't subscribe users to it) Chris ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #43 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 24 00:02:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA15059; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:02:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:02:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803240502.AAA15059@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #44 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 98 23:37:21 EST Volume 18 : Issue 42 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities (Robert Gordon) Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities (Victor Escobar) Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities (Cortland Richmond) Re: 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! (Mitchell L Franzos) Re: GSM PCMCIA Card Lets You Stay On-line (Wolf Paul) Re: PacBell's Response to Posted Complaint (John Dearing) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:08:21 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities In Telecom-Digest, Volume 18, Issue 39, Nathan Brophy wrote: > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:03:18 -0600 > From: Nathan Brophy > Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom > Subject: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities > I am a college student majoring in MIS. I am currently doing research > to identify the top telecom and technology centric metropolitan areas > in the US. I know of Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley but I am > looking for other less known metropolitan areas that also can be > considered top high bandwidth and high technology cities. I am also > interested in identifying various businesses that are drawn to and > depend on these metropolitan environments. > I would really appreciate if anyone could direct me to any helpful > trade magazines, prior research, or interesting relevant articles that > will assist me in identifying the top telecom and technology centric > metropolitan areas in the US. To quote Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter of the Harvard Business School: "... Silicon Valley no longer is unique and no longer is able to monopolize the development of new technology. Everyone is already talking about Silicon Gulch in Austin, Silicon Mountain in Colorado, Silicon Forest in Seatle, Silicon Bog in Ireland, and Silicon Glen in Scotland." Well, being slightly partisan to Boston (which Oliver Wendell Holmes called "The Hub of the Universe" long before the concept of network topology or silicon anything), I point you to: The Massachusetts Telecommunications Council URL: < http://www.masstel.org/ > The Massachusetts Telecommunications Council (MTC) began in 1993 with an ambitious yet straightforward mission: To promote Massachusetts as a world center for telecommunications by building on the extraordinarily high concentration of telecommunications organizations doing business in the state. Massachusetts currently is home to more than 1,000 telecommunications organizations employing well over 100,000 people. And for some good leads and an entertaining look at "Siliconia" -- the practice of calling any concentration of high-tech companies "Silicon Someplace", as in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara Country), Silicon Triangle (North Carolina) or Silicon Bog (Ireland), see Keith Dawson's fine web page at: URL: < http://www.tbtf.com/siliconia.html > And for a newspaper article citing several of these high tech regions and their competitive advantages (as well as Keith Dawson's web site), see the article at: URL: < http://cgi2.nando.net/newsroom/nao/biz/030297/bizt_21779.html > You may also want to look at regional eceonomic development issues related to telecom infrastructure but not necessarily to the telecom industry. That is, what kinds of industries make locational decisions based on the availability of telecommunications resources. One useful citation on this topic is a research paper by Mitchell Moss of the Taub Urban Research Center at New York University. It's title is "Telecommunications Policy and Cities" and you can find it on the web at: URL: < http://urban.nyu.edu/research/telecom-policy-cities/telecom.html > If you develop a comprehensive list, please post it and your conclusions back here in the Telecom Digest. Many of us would be interested in your findings. Here are a couple of items from the L.A. Times this week on this very topic: The Tech Coast: Orange County: Finding traces of silicon in suburbia By Barbara Marsh and P.J. Huffstutter March 19, 1998 For the last 15 years, the operative mentality in Orange County, California, has been: Build a tech center and the companies will follow. This plan has been hugely successful with the development of Irvine Spectrum, Irvine Co.'s field of dreams. But it's too soon to tell whether the massive business park will become -- as billed -- the next Silicon Valley. According to Donald Bren, the center's visionary founder and chairman of Irvine Co., everything about it is aimed at transforming 5,000 acres of strawberry fields into the region's reigning digital king. How? First, there's space. Orange County has more square footage of available commercial space than Silicon Valley, Irvine Co. says. At Irvine Spectrum, promoters tout everything from general access to high-speed data lines to the campus' landscaping. Another benefit is access to major transportation routes and easy access to both San Diego and Los Angeles. Within 15 minutes, employees can reach the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways, John Wayne Airport, and an Amtrak station located in the middle of the Spectrum itself. Also attractive is the synergy between the business world and UC Irvine, whose research staff garnered Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physics in 1995. So far, the formula works. The Spectrum's ever-growing campus now includes 2,200 companies, a large number of them technology start-ups. "There's no need for us to be parochial about this, or to say that we only want companies to come to Orange County. We want everyone in California to do well," said Richard Sim, executive vice president of Irvine Co., "But there's no denying that in Southern California, we are the biggest technology hub. Everything that a company could possibly want is here. What else is missing?" Silicon Valley's risk-oriented soul, say local executives. In its early days, Silicon Valley fed off a constant supply of engineers and executives alienated by the bureaucratic culture of big business -- people such as Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore, who split from Fairchild Semiconductor to found Intel. Orange County executives say the spirit of unconventionality and defiance is lacking here. There are no local cafes or corner bars where programmers meet and kvetch after work. And critics say it's tough to start a revolution from the relative comforts of suburbia. "People say we're the next Silicon Valley," said Don Allen, a spokesman for Wonderware, which is often cited as a Spectrum success story. "But it's obvious to me that we need more time to mature." Few of the computer technology companies based in the Spectrum are industry leaders. The center has no Intel or Microsoft, no single dominant player spinning out dozens of young millionaires eager to launch their own firms. Microsoft, AT&T and Apple each have a presence in the Spectrum, but only in the form of sales offices, not major research and development centers or dominant manufacturing hubs. So what is here? A solid, comfortable foundation primed for growth, say industry watchers.=20 On the PC front, there's Western Digital, a maker of hard disk drives, and consumer electronics behemoth Toshiba America Electronic Components. The digital buzz spills out to the surrounding area, with Rockwell International making Costa Mesa the home for its headquarters and Newport Beach the hub for its semiconductor business. It's the promise of a golden future that draws companies such as Laughlin-Wilt Group to the area. When the electronics manufacturing firm decided to open an office outside Oregon, employees called their travel agents and booked flights to all of the typical high-tech hubs, including Silicon Valley, North Carolina's Research Triangle and Boston's Route 128. Then they heard about Irvine Spectrum, where 27 percent of the technology companies fall into the biotechnology or biomedical firms. The advantage of moving to Orange County, said company founder Joe Laughlin, was simply the lack of competition and the availability of cheaper space. "Breaking into Silicon Valley right now is impossible," said Laughlin, whose company provides manufacturing and circuit-board assembly services to telecommunication and medical device makers. "Here we can slip into the scene." Copyright 1998, Los Angeles Times. The Tech Coast: San Diego: After cold war, biotech and wireless get hot By Elizabeth Douglass March 20, 1998 Navy ships, government contracts and the San Diego Zoo are still important staples in the local economy, but the region's hot industries have a different focus these days: AIDS drugs, wireless telephones and high-tech golf clubs. It's a big change for a region once so dominated by defense contracts that General Dynamics alone employed nearly a third of the private-sector work force. As the recession and the Cold War thaw hit the city in the early1990s, thousands of high-wage jobs disappeared and economists worried about San Diego's economic future. But the region has rebounded strongly with the help of powerful weapons -- the rich research base of UC San Diego and other institutions, the unique clout of the start-up support group Connect and the drawing power of fast-growing Qualcomm. "San Diego's really remade itself into a very exciting high-tech center," said Julie Meier Wright, president of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. "As recently as the early 1990s, this was a defense economy." The region's new economic strengths are not overlooked by venture capital firms. More than 90 San Diego-area companies took in $428.5million in venture funds last year, according to a tally by Coopers & Lybrand. The figure, which represents a 15 percent increase over 1996, ranks the region second in the state for venture deals, well ahead of Orange and Los Angeles counties. (The Bay Area remains the state's king of venture cash.) More than half the venture funding flowed to the region's huge biotechnology industry, which encompasses an estimated 250 companies. Many of them are tucked away in the city's Torrey Pines area, west of Interstate 5 and close to the San Diego Supercomputer Center and the research powerhouses of UCSD, the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the Scripps Research Institute. Connect, a group affiliated with UCSD, has had a role too. It sponsors venture capital conferences and provides entrepreneurs with links to potential partners, accountants and patent attorneys. Many tech leaders believe Connect's networking role has fostered the kind of cooperative business environment that ultimately helps companies grow. For many years, the biotech group's success rate was unimpressive. But within the last year, three locally developed drugs have earned regulatory approval, including the AIDS drug Viracept, which brought profits and skyrocketing sales to Agouron Pharmaceuticals. "There are dozens more (biotech products) in late-phase clinical trials, so the pipeline is rich in this area," said Wright. Wireless telecom, once largely fueled by defense contracts, has grown with blistering speed in San Diego. The region has become one of the nation's hot spots for the technology -- employment in that sector has quadrupled to about 25,000 in the span of five years. Much of the growth has been generated by the twin powers Sony Electronics and Qualcomm, which together added thousands of local jobs while ramping up production of digital wireless phones. Qualcomm, once criticized as a renegade upstart hawking a suspect technology, now has a work force of more than 10,000 -- it added 3,000in 1997 alone -- and its name on the local football arena, formerly Jack Murphy Stadium. Its technology, a method of transmitting wireless phone signals in digital form, is now widely accepted, and the company has become the driving force behind San Diego's emerging Wireless Valley. Copyright 1998, Los Angeles Times. The Arctos Group [Information Strategies for the Real Estate Industry] Post Office Box 329 - Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02167-0003 USA tel: 617.342.7411 - fax: 617.232.0025 - email: arctos@arctos.com visit our WWW site at URL: http://www.arctos.com/arctos ------------------------------ From: Robert Gordon Reply-To: rlgordon@bellsouth.net Organization: Central Carolina Bank Subject: Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:04:29 GMT I don't know of any specific articles but Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, should be considered on of the top areas in the country. It is located between Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill which gives it access to three major universities. It has major research and development centers for IBM, Nortel and Cisco. The {Raleigh News & Observer} did a major write-up in the March 15, 1998, Business section. Robert Gordon Network Services Central Carolina Bank ------------------------------ From: Victor Escobar Subject: Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 04:03:48 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Blacksburg, VA is a very happening place. A partnership exists between VA Tech and the surrounding area which is bringing lots of stuff (fibre to the home, etc.) to bear. Plus, Blacksburg has the highest density of computers of anywhere in the world, supposedly. (And I qualify that with the `supposedly.') Just do a search on BEV (B'burg Electronic Village) with your favourite browser. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:54:14 -0800 From: Cortland Richmond Reply-To: ka5s@saber.net Subject: Re: Telecom and Technology Centric US Cities While it might not be precisely what you had in mind, the little town of Petaluma, 40 miles North of San Francisco, is home to a disproportionate share of the US telecom innovation, with DSC, Diamond Lane, AFC and others, all working on new digital solutions for future telecoms, and aggressively marketing their technologies for today's rapidly changing telecom structure. Strange, then, that in Petaluma I can't even get a reliable 28.8 connection! I work on stuff lots faster than what my local carrier can provide. Cheers, Cortland ------------------------------ From: skitch+@pitt.edu (Mitchell L Franzos) Subject: Re: 3000.00 Phone Bill HELP!!! Date: 22 Mar 1998 17:54:33 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article , Gail M. Hall wrote: > I have a suggestion for those national ISPs like ATT.NET and a general > complaint about figuring out local vs. long distance numbers. > When the national ISP has its list of phone numbers for new user > signup, instead of making people go through tons of phone numbers, > program the configuration software for calling the ISP to ask the > users where they live or to enter their telephone number. Then the > program should pop up the few phone numbers that are **local** to that > number or the **least costly** for that number. This would really > help people who don't really know which numbers are local and which > numbers are long distance. Or they can do something like what the WebTV box does ... AFAIK the first time you use a WebTV box, it dials a modem on an 800 number, and the computer on the other side gets the ANI and figures out what the best dialup number would be for you and sends that down to the WebTV box which then hangs up and dials the local number it just got. No user interaction at all, short (< 1 minute) connection on the 800 number ... pretty slick if you ask me. Mitch Franzos (412) 401-0968 skitch+@pitt.edu Skitch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only thing I see wrong with this is that with phone numbers and area codes changing so rapidly these days, the Web TV reference might also be wrong. At least with *some* user interaction, a reasonably intelligent user could make a distinction on the matter. Web TV should certainly suggest local numbers however. I think America OnLine does the same same on the first call. They locate several nearby numbers, but the user still has to make the final choice from the offerings presented. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wolf.paul@aut.alcatel.at@aut.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: GSM PCMCIA Card Lets You Stay On-line Date: 22 Mar 1998 11:10:51 GMT Organization: Alcatel Austria AG In article , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond writes: > I've come across so many problems when taking a laptop and PCMCIA > modem around: different plug style, different dial-tone, problem > finding a decent telephone line, problem finding a place where to plug > the laptop in etc. > Often, I ended up connecting through my hotel room, thus paying some > extortionate telephone rates that hotels sometimes practise. > My way round this was to use, whenever possible, a modem connected to > a GSM phone, say around Europe. No more plug problems, no more trouble > finding a phone line. The GSM International roaming agreements did the > job. I have NEVER YET come across a hotel which charges rates anywhere as high as roaming agreement rates in Europe usually are. So from my perspective, this sounds like a high-priced convenience which may sometimes be justified, but I still prefer to find out what the phone sockets in a given country are like and using some kind of adapter or workaround to connect to landline phones. Just my two cents (or pennies, or centimes, or whatever) worth. W. N. Paul/KSRU * Alcatel Austria AG * Scheydgasse 41 * A-1210 Vienna, Austria wnp@aut.alcatel.at * +43-1-277-22 x5523 (voice)/x118 (fax) * +43-1-774-1947 (h) ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: PacBell's Response to Posted Complaint Date: 22 Mar 1998 21:43:46 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Michael D. Maxfield (tweek@netcom.com) wrote: > Remember me? I posted here several days ago, and I was in a very > nasty mood over not being allowed to impress upon a 611 repair > representative, that a certain problem I was experiencing with my > phone service to certain destinations, was not with my lines, but with > PacBell's circuits. The question you had about the AMI vs B8ZS setting on the interoffice trunk facilities reminds me of a trouble report I was out on a couple of years ago when I was still an outside Special Services Tech. We had a customer who was a subscriber to one of the Bell Atlantic dialup services (pre bellatlantic.net days). Anyway, they were calling from one central office area downtown to the next office over (where the dialin modem pool was). He was still using a 2400 bps modem and was getting the periodic repeating "squigglies". Calls to other modems in other parts of the city were just fine. At that point I realized it was clearly an interoffice facility problem since the line had been tested several times by the regular repair techs and was A-OK. I managed to get in contact with someobne in the NOC (Network Operation Center) that was willing to admit that there *might* be a problem. The hardest problem an outside tech has is always convincing the Switchman that there is a problem inside. 8-) We started tracing a few test calls. They watched what trunks the calls went out over and noted what trunk group and channel. Wesoon found out that 3 entire trunk groups (24 trunks each) were not capable of passing data. They were fine for voice but couldn't pass data worth a s**t. It turns out that the problem was the trunks were optioned for B8ZS and should have been AMI. It seems that the muxes these trunks pass through take a bunch of individual trunk groups (24 channels, a T-1) and mux them onto a DS3. There is a card that controls 4 T-1's at a time. If that card is optioned for B8ZS then ALL FOUR T-1's are now B8ZS. It seems that these 3 trunk groups were initially turned up OK as AMI. One slot was "spare". A customer requests that a new B8ZS T-1 be installed. The central office goes and puts the new T-1 in that spare slot and reoptions the card for B8ZS, not realizing they just "broke" 3 other T's. They temporarily fixed it by busying out those three trunk groups. This forced the traffic onto other trunks that were OK. They then rearranged the trunks so that the AMI trunks were where they belonged and the B8ZS was where it belonged. John Dearing : Philadelphia Area Computer Society IBM SIG President Email : jdearing "at" netaxs "dot" com U.S.Snail : 46 Oxford Drive, Langhorne PA 19047 (USA) Voice Phone : +1.215.757.8803 (after 5pm Eastern) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #42 ***************************** NOTE: ISSUES 43 AND 44 APPEAR PRIOR TO ISSUE 42 IN THIS ARCHIVE DUE TO MAILING PROBLEMS. From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 25 16:53:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA09707; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:53:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:53:20 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803252153.QAA09707@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #45 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Mar 98 16:53:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 45 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Integrated Management '99 Call For Papers (Nikos Anerousis) 877 - Roll-Out, or Delay? (Judith Oppenheimer) EXPO COMM and COMDEX/Spring Coming to Chicago (Bill Sell) Concerns About the Growth of World Phone Penetration (Dave Penkler) Emergency Wireless Phones (Dale Laluk) Hunting Down the Source of an Intercept (John Waters) CNID Question (Clifton T. Sharp Jr.) Telephone Acoustic Interface (Miguel Garcia) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nikos Anerousis Subject: Integrated Management '99 Call For Papers Organization: AT&T Labs Research, Florham Park, NJ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:00:55 GMT IFIP/IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N Boston Park Plaza Hotel Boston, Mass., USA May 10-14, 1999 "DISTRIBUTED MANAGEMENT FOR THE NETWORKED MILLENNIUM" See http://www.comsoc.org/confs/im/99 for latest information The Sixth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM '99) will be held May 10-14, 1999 in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. The symposium is sponsored by the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group 6.6 on Network Management for Communication Networks, and by the IEEE Communications Society Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM). The sixth in a distinguished series, IM '99 will build upon the successes of ISINM '89, '91, '93, '95 and IM '97 in serving as the primary forum for technical exchange for the research, standards, development, systems integrator, vendor and user communities in the area of network and distributed systems management. The next millennium will be a network age with ubiquitous network access from, work, home, schools, libraries and public information kiosks. Portable networked computers will be widespread permitting communication and multi-media interaction, while on the move. The wide distribution of computing and communication facilities between organisational boundaries and multiple countries will introduce many new management challenges. Management in this new information era will need to support the integration of data and telecommunications networks, from narrowband to broadband, terrestrial to satellite, fixed to mobile and uni-media to multi-media. The next symposium is expected to provide a shift of emphasis towards electronic commerce, federated systems, and end-to-end management of distributed services. This symposia is the premier biannual event where the latest research and industrial solutions for integrated management of networks and distributed systems are presented in technical sessions and vendor exhibits. We intend to introduce a new track of industrial experience to permit the sharing of the lessons learnt from case studies by the user or vendor community. The IM '99 symposium will be organized to provide the highest quality professional event of the year through active participation on the Program Committee of many of the most respected people in the fields of network and distributed systems management, and a stringent review process. A limited number of stipends will be available to those unable to obtain funding to attend the conference. Students whose papers are accepted and who will present the paper themselves are encouraged to apply if such assistance is needed. Requests for stipends should be addressed to the Program Co-Chair responsible for the requestor's region. Please also note that a limited number of IEEE Student Travel Grants may be available for student authors from *outside North America* who will be presenting papers. TECHNICAL PROGRAM Authors are invited to submit unpublished papers, as well as proposals for tutorials, panel discussions, poster demonstrations, or birds-of-a-feather sessions (informal discussion groups) in the following topic areas. Other topics relevant to management are also welcome and we particularly encourage industrial papers on case studies and experiences which emphasise the lessons learnt. - Distributed Systems and Applications Management - New Enabling Management Platforms (CORBA, DCOM, Java,etc.) - Using the Web for Management - Management Tools and Applications - Integration of Network Control and Management - Network Design Tools and Capacity Planning - Active Network Management - Intelligent Agent Technology - Interoperability and Cooperative Control - Management of the Internet, Intranets and the Web - Management of Electronic Commerce - Management of Mobile Systems and Networks - Personal Communications Services Management - Multimedia and Telecommunication Service Management - Information Models - Policy-Driven Management - Monitoring, Event and Fault Handling - Quality of Service Management - Security Management - Open Network Control - Standards Frameworks and Issues: OSI, SNMP, TMN, TINA, ODP etc. - Case Studies and Experiences - User and Service Profile Management - Human Factors, User Interfaces and Virtual Reality for Management Papers are to be submitted in English. The cover page should indicate whether it is a research or experiences paper; and include paper title, brief abstract, list of key-words, author(s) full name(s), affiliation(s) and complete address(es), telephone number(s) and electronic mail address(es). All paper submissions will be carefully reviewed by at least three international experts and returned to the author(s) with comments to ensure high quality. The authors of accepted papers will receive the suggested modifications for inclusion in the widely distributed, hard-bound Symposium Proceedings. The final camera-ready copy should be no longer than 12 single-spaced pages. Final papers arriving too late will be removed from the program. The authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their paper will be presented at the symposium. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS The front page of the paper should contain author names and addresses, an abstract and keywords indicating the paper topic area (preferably from the above list), to be used in choosing referees. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION IS ADVISABLE. Authors are requested to submit papers in PDF or postscript format via the web (instructions for electronic submissions are available at) http://nsm.research.bell-labs.com/~im99/SubmitPaper.html or by email to Subrata Mazumdar at mazum@research.bell-labs.com. For ALL electronic submissions the cover page of the paper should be submitted using the on-line form available at http://nsm.research.bell-labs.com/~im99/SubmitPaper.html and and a printed copy posted to the appropriate Program Co-Chair. Program Co-Chair: (Americas, Australia) Subrata Mazumdar Bell Laboratories Room 4G-634 101 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, New Jersey 07733-3030, USA Email: mazum@research.bell-labs.com OR Program Co-Chair: (Europe, Asia, Africa) Morris Sloman Department of Computing Imperial College of Science and Technology 180 Queen's Gate London SW7 2BZ, UK Email: mss@doc.ic.ac.uk Deadline for Receipt of Papers: July 1, 1998 Deadline for Receipt of Proposals for Tutorials, BOFs, Panels and Posters August 15, 1998 Notification of Acceptance Mailed: November 4, 1998 Final Camera Ready Papers Due: December 12, 1998 Poster presentations should be submitted to either of the Program Co-Chairs. VENDOR PROGRAM The Symposium offers vendors the opportunity to demonstrate their network and systems management products to leaders and innovators from around the world. Various levels of participation are available. As a Symposia Patron, you can present your products and services in our vendor showcase. Symposia Patrons will also have an opportunity to make a product-related presentation on recent technical advancements, product enhancements, or corporate directions. The vendor showcase will be open during the three days, of the symposium, in parallel with other sessions. For IM '99 we are adding a lower cost vendor participation level designed for smaller companies with innovative technologies. Cost will be saved through time- shared demonstration facilities and displays. Vendors interested in becoming Symposium Sponsors or participating in the showcase should contact the vendor Co-Chairs: Mark Sylor Email: sylor@concord.com Phone: 1-508-303-4262 Joe Hellerstein Email: jlh@watson.ibm.com Phone: +1 914 784 7506 TUTORIALS The symposium includes tutorials on the days before and after the technical program. A proposal to present a tutorial should contain the following information: Tutorial Title Names of Presenter(s) Summary of the contents: approximately 1-2 pages i.e. 500-1000 words Brief biography of the presenter(s): approximately half page If the tutorial or an earlier version of it has been given before please indicate the events and dates. Information on suggested topic areas and guidelines for submitting proposals can be found at http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/im99/tutorials. Proposals should be submitted to the Tutorial Chair: Rolf Stadler Email: stadler@ctr.columbia.edu Deadline for Receipt of Proposals: August 15, 1998 PANELS AND BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER SESSIONS Proposals for Panels and Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions should be submitted to the Special Event Chair Varoozh Harikian Email: varoozh@vnet.ibm.com Deadline for Receipt of Proposals August 15, 1998 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE General Chair: Seraphin B. Calo (SBC) IBM Research Division Thomas J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA Email: scalo@us.ibm.com Tel: +1 914 784 7514 Fax: +1 914 784 6031 Technical Program Co-Chairs: Subrata Mazumdar, Bell Laboratories, USA Morris Sloman, Imperial College, UK Vendor Co-Chairs: Mark Sylor, Concord Communications, USA Joe Hellerstein, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA Tutorial Program Chair: Rolf Stadler, Columbia University, USA Finance Chair: Yvonne Hildebrand, Copper Mountain Networks, USA Special Events Chair: Varoozh Harikian, IBM International Education Centre, Belgium Publicity: Nikos Anerousis, AT&T, USA Local Arrangements: TBD IEEE/ComSoc Coordinator: Tom Stevenson, IEEE Communications Society, USA STEERING COMMITTEE: Branislav Meandzija, Next Level Systems, USA Wolfgang Zimmer, GMD FIRST, Germany Doug Zuckerman, Bellcore, USA ADVISORY BOARD: Roberto Saracco, CSELT, Italy Makoto Yoshida, NTT-AT, Japan Jim Herman, Northeast Consulting Resources, USA Ken Lutz, Bellcore, USA PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Salah Aidarous, NEC, USA Anindo Banerjea,University of Toronto, Canada Subodh Bapat, Sun Microsystems, USA, Joseph Betser, Aerospace Corp., USA Jit Biswas, ISS, Singapore Laura Cerchio, CSELT, Italy Fawzi Daoud, University of Toronto, Canada William Donnelly, Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland Gabi Dreo-Rodosek, Leibniz Supercomputing Center, Germany Masayoshi Ejiri, Fujitsu, Japan Metin Feridun, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Switzerland Kurt Geihs, University of Frankfurt, Germany German Goldszmidt, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA Gita Gopal, HP Labs, USA Shri Goyal, GTE Labs, USA Sigmund Handelman, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA Masum Hasan, Lucent Bell Labs, USA Heinz-Gerd Hegering, University of Munich, Germany James Hong, POSTECH, Korea Gabriel Jakobson, GTE Labs,USA Gautam Kar, IBM Global Services, USA Irene Katzela, University of Toronto, Canada Wolfgang Kleinoeder, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Switzerland Aurel Lazar, Columbia University, USA Emil Lupu, Imperial College, UK Manu Malek, Lucent Bell Labs, USA Joe Martinka, HP Labs, USA George Mouradian, AT&T Labs, USA Shoichiro Nakai, NEC, Japan Giovanni Pacifici, IBM, USA Jong Tae Park, Kyungpook National University, Korea George Pavlou, University College London, UK Pradeep Ray, University of Western Sydney, Australia Jan Roos, University of Pretoria, South Africa Veli Sahin, SAMSUNG Telecommunications, USA Juergen Schoenwaelder, Technical University Braunschweig, Germany Adarshpal Sethi, University of Delaware, USA Cheenu Srinivasan, Lucent Bell Labs, USA Binay Sugla, Lucent Bell Labs, USA Liba Svobodova, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Switzerland Simon Towers, Microsoft, USA Fabienne Vincent-Franc, CNES, France Carlos Westphall, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brasil Felix Wu, NC State University, USA Yechiam Yemini, Columbia University, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:27:45 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: 877 - Roll-Out, or Delay? LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD Congressional leaders tell the FCC, "Vanity numbers are extraordinarily valuable marketing tools for large and small businesses alike...", "Large carriers are RespOrgs, SNAC members, and subscribers... There exists a fundamental conflict of interest in the roles [they] have in the toll free industry." Washington, D.C. U.S. - (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) Prompted by local centers with concerns for call centers and 800 users nationwide, Maine's Congressional representatives: Senators Olympia J. Snowe and Susan M. Collins, and Representatives John E. Baldacci and Tom Allen, have each written to the Commissioner William E. Kennard, calling for greater FCC consideration of toll free user rights -- and better toll free resource management -- in advance of the introduction of 877. Referring to Steve White, President of The New England 800 Company, a Maine call center, Senator Snowe writes, "The New England 800 Company is concerned primarily about the consumer confusion, misdials, and erosion of trademarks that could result from opening up additional toll-free service access codes... this is a matter of urgent importance not only to the New England 800 Company, but to many other call center companies nationwide." Senator Collins brings Mr. Kennard's attention to issues raised by the Small Business Administration in its ex parte to the FCC, which also asked for delay in 877 roll-out. "My principal concern with the proposed rollout," she writes, "is that a business that has invested heavily to develop a highly recognizable toll free number under the 800 and 888 service access codes may be materially harmed if the same number is assigned to another subscriber under the 877 service access code." Fundamental Conflict of Interest "The SBA has also raised a number of potential problems with the Commission's order dealing with the brokering and hoarding of toll free numbers ... Finally, allowing the system to be administered by the toll free carriers does seem, in its face, to hold the potential for a conflict of interest, as the SBA contents," says Senator Collins. Representative Baldacci also expressed concerns about this issue. "There exists a fundamental conflict of interest in the roles that large carriers have in the toll free industry," he says. "Large carriers are RespOrgs, SNAC members, and subscribers. Certainly, large carriers have an inordinate amount of control over the policy for 8XX subscribers and access to those numbers." The Value of Vanity Numbers He goes on, "The 'vanity' number and replication issues have not yet been resolved. There exists no clear definition for 'vanity' numbers. Vanity numbers are extraordinarily valuable marketing tools for large and small businesses alike. Before further complicating the issue with the 877 SAC, this issue must be resolved." Specifically, Representative Baldacci points out, "there is a need to examine how to have a more level playing field for small entities. I urge the FCC to consider a delay of 30 to 60 days to look into these matters." Representative Tom Allen also expressed concerns that the commercial value of existing 800 numbers would be jeopardized, and that small businesses would have limited access to new toll free numbers. Brief but eloquent, Mr. Allen recommends that the FCC "... preserve the utility of an 800 number as a marketing tool." Doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Sell Subject: EXPO COMM and COMDEX/Spring Coming to Chicago Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:09:36 -0500 EXPO COMM USA 98, together with COMDEX/Spring and WINDOWS WORLD, is the largest integrated event for communications and information technology solutions. These three co-located events take place April 20-23, in Chicago's McCormick Place. EXPO COMM USA will deliver the biggest names and latest solutions to Chicago this April, and has announced that heads of MCI, Sprint and CompuServe will headline the speaker program. Peter Van Camp, president of CompuServe Network Services; Bert C. Roberts, Jr., chairman of MCI Communications Corporation; and William T. Esrey, chairman and CEO of Sprint Communications are scheduled to keynote. The conference and exposition will provide the industry's most significant event focused on achieving business objectives in an Internet-enabled world. More than 100,000 computer and communications professionals are expected to attend the three tradeshows during their 4-day run at Chicago's McCormick Place, April 20-23, 1998. The combined exhibitors roster for COMDEX/Spring, WINDOWS WORLD and EXPO COMM USA includes such industry giants as: AT&T, Ameritech, Cisco Systems, CompuServe, Computer Associates, Dell, Digital Equipment, Gateway 2000, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Novell, Ricoh, SAS, Sprint, Tektronix and Unisys. Exhibition and keynote guest passes are free, if you register online before April 8. Further information and registration are online at http://events.comdex.com/cs98/expo.htm and enter the special Telecom Digest reader customer code of ECTM. ------------------------------ Subject: Concerns About the Growth of World Phone Penetration From: Dave Penkler Date: 24 Mar 1998 21:02:20 +0100 Dear Pat, In these days filled with the exuberant hype of the internet it is sobering to realise that half the world does not have a phone yet and that competition and deregulation might not be making it easier for them to get one. See "For Most, Phones Are Still Just a Rumor" at: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/11118.html This is also a preoccupation with the regluatory powers as witnessed in the recently published Chairman's Report of the ITU's seventh regulatory colloquim entitled " Transforming Economic Relationships in International Telecommunications". Here the issue of the inadequacy of the so called international accounting rate system was addressed. Increasingly international traffic is bypassing the accounting system as global alliances and local competition take effect. This in turn is having the effect of decreasing the income of incumbent operators in less developed and developing countries. (These countries generally terminate more traffic than they originate and therefore receive net settlement payments.) The international settlement rates, it is argued by some, notably the FCC are unreasonably high and bear no relationship to costs. Others argue that the settlements rates are essential to fund the build out the telecom network in the developing countries. The colloquim's main concern was "the need to preserve and expand telecommunications systems so as to meet the needs of all peoples at reasonable and affordable prices." The report analyses the forces of change, the impact of change and also a number of alternative solutions to adapting successfully to the new "single market" environment. I found it objective in outlook and a stimulating read, especially the briefing report by Michael Tyler. The full 99 page indexed ITU report can be found on their web server at: http://www.itu.int/itudoc/osg/colloq/chai_rep/sevencol/sevencol_43176.html I am very interested to hear the opinion of TELECOM Digest readers on this topic! For those who feel the need for a further palliative I can recommend the Gloomy Delights of Professor Ian Angell of the London School of Economics. See "Winners and Losers in the Information Age" at: http://www.csrc.lse.ac.uk/csrc/ang01.htm Here's a little snippet: '...a new order (which many will call disorder) is being forced upon an unsuspecting world by advances in telecommunications. The future is being born in the so-called information superhighways. Very soon these electronic telecommunication networks, covering the world via cable and satellite, will enable everyone in the world to "talk" to everyone else. We are entering a new elite cosmopolitan age. Global commerce will force through the construction of multi-media highways, and anyone bypassed by these highways faces ruin.' Cheers, Dave PENKLER | E-Mail: Dave_Penkler@grenoble.hp.com Telecom Business Unit | Hewlett-Packard France | Telephone: +33 (0)4 7614 1446 5 av R. Chanas - Eybens | Fax: +33 (0)4 7614 5323 38053 Grenoble Cedex 09 | GSM: +33 (0)6 0715 0256 FRANCE | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very first paragraph your article is well-worth repeating: about half the population of the world does have a telephone at all; most of those people have never even used one, let alone subscribe to service. Another twenty-five percent or so do have some form of phone service, but typically very crude, older- style equipment incapable of being upgraded without a complete replace- ment of the system now in place. I've received letters here in the past from people who have read the Digest and marveled at the extremely sophisticated telecom network over much or most of the United States which is totally unavailable to them in their locality. Such 'early' features of the modern system as call-waiting and call forwarding are still not available in parts of the USA where crossbar and stepper central offices still prevail. A large percentage of the public which could have better still chooses to stay with rotary dial and zero feat- ures on their line. People in some places in Europe, the old Soviet Union area, Africa, and elsewhere still put in requests for phone serv- ice then wait for years to get it. To the credit of the now defunct 'Bell System' which Judge Greene hated so much, things have still held together pretty well over the past decade since divestiture, but with the increasing trend toward even further deregulation I have to wonder how much longer we can expect to remain number one, and if indeed the large part of the world's population which is still phoneless will ever get to first base. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dale Laluk Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:54:44 +0000 Subject: Emergency Wireless Phones Hi, I need to provide a solution to a college that is putting emergency telephones into thier various parking lots around the campus. There is lots of power outlets, but running telephone lines to the locations is going to be very expensive. Does anyone know of a wireless solution that would accept inputs from an emergency telephone? I know there are site-wide wireless telephone solution but they all seem to require a proprietary handset. I figure this way they can use it both for emergency phone and phones for the mtce. people at the same time. Dale Laluk, C.E.T. Lunar Communication Services P.O. Box 569, Hudson's Hope, B.C. V0C 1V0 250-783-5365 or 1-800-227-5912 voice 250-783-5790 fax lunarcom@netbistro.com internet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:48:52 -0500 From: John Waters Reply-To: jwaters@atitech.ca Organization: ATI Technologies Subject: Hunting Down the Source of an Intercept Hi Pat, We've been getting reports from customers who are try to contact us that they are hearing intercepts such as "We're sorry, your call did not go through. For assistance, please contact your customer service center. Thank you. PHOD3." This person is getting this message when he tries to dial either our Customer Support group or our Switchboard. Both are in the same NPA/NXX, and non-800 service. We are located in Thornhill, ON (just outside of Toronto). Does anybody out there know how to track down where this message originates? It is not one of our recordings. These are happening more and more, and I'm confused. Thanks for your help. John Waters Telecommunications Specialist ATI Technologies. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you are going to need to take a survey of the customers who report this problem, then try to find something in common between them. Are they all in the same geographic area, or all served by the same long distance carrier? Were all of their complaints on the same day or about the same time? There may be some way to identify the switch by the letters and numbers given at the very end of the recorded message, but I do not know of any single reference to them all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. Subject: CNID Question Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:26:38 -0600 Organization: as little as possible Reply-To: clifto@megsinet.net My nephew calls me from Joliet West CO, and I'm in the Schiller Park CO 32 billing miles away (40 miles is supposed to be the breakover point where calls go to the IXC). What I can't figure out is that month after month, the delivered name alternates between "Illinois Call" and his name (most often the former). In my experience, "Illinois Call" comes from the IXC, but from what I know of the tariffs the IXC isn't *required* to enter the picture until there's 40 or more miles between COs. What giveth? +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Cliff Sharp | Wanna know how to uninstall Microsoft Internet Explorer? | | WA9PDM | http://home.netscape.com/download/netscape_now.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What may be occuring is that his call is sometimes routed one way and sometimes routed another. Maybe all the circuits on the most direct route between you are busy and the call is handed off to some nearby (to him, yet more than 40 miles away) central office which would cause the IXC to get involved. Even if some re-routing like this is taking place because now more than 40 miles is involved, my understanding is that the IXC would still not handle it since the 'natural' or 'normal' progress of the call would be of a lesser distance. In other words, the distance is measured in air miles, or 'as the crow flies' regardless of the actual miles involved taken as a result of the convenience to telco in routing the call as they did. But maybe the CO sending him north and the CO accepting his call for eventual delivery to you are in fact more than 40 miles apart and the two of them normally communicate only through an IXC and no one is bothering to communicate (to each CO) that really, the distance is much less, so his call is treated like any other that those two offices pass between themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ From: miguelgpbsantos@mail.telepac.pt (Miguel Garcia) Subject: Telephone Acoustic Interface Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:59:24 GMT Hi everybody, I'm developing a system which must communicate via telephone DTMF. As many people know there must be a licence to connect anything directly to the phone line in many countries such as mine. Because of that I decided to use an acoustic interface. It uses one microphone to receive voice, DTMF and to detect 400Hz signal (for call progress status indication), and a second microphone is used for ring detection (+- 3KHz in my telephone). A speaker is used to send pre-recorded voice and DTMF signals from the system. My problem is: Although the ring detection (3KHz from the second microphone) and 400Hz detection (from the first microphone) signals are both filtered by two 4th order band pass filter (tuned on their adequate frequencies) there are many frequencies in the natural environment that cross (or are equal to) those tuned frequencies. That way an interrupt request (to answer a call) can be falsely generated into the system by the ring detection subsystem. I think it will be worst in what concerns to the 400Hz detection because, for example, if the system wants to dial a number, it takes up the receiver with a controlled electromagnetic arm and it must to recognise a dialing tone trough the first microphone of +- 400Hz. The probability of confusion between this telephone sound and another sound with the same frequency that may be present at the same environment, at the same time, and captured by the microphone is high, so the system may interpret it as dialing tone when it isn't present. Of course it may misunderstand other telephone tones like ringing tone, engaged tone ... My question is: Have you any idea about any resolution of this problem? Please e-mail too. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #45 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 26 00:37:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA04747; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:37:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:37:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803260537.AAA04747@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #46 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Mar 98 00:37:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 46 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Extortionist Found Guilty in MS/Gates Case (TELECOM Digest Editor) Book Review: "Encyclopedia of Networking: Electronic Edition" (Rob Slade) AOL and Tel-Save Approach Half a Million Long Distance Lines (Mike Pollock) Call54 Now Available in West Virginia (Tad Cook) Re: Bell Logo Question (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Bell Logo Question (Bob Gramza) Re: Bell Logo Question (Mark Naftel) Re: Bell Logo Question (Fred Goodwin) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:46:58 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Extortionist Found Guilty in MS/Gates Case A 22 year old man from Long Grove, Illinois (a small town which is a far-north suburb of Chicago) was found guilty on Tuesday of trying to extort five million dollars from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Adam Quinn Pletcher, who has a long history of operating scams on the Internet, was found guilty by a jury in federal court in Seattle after a two-day trial. The jury took just three hours to deliberate in the case. Early in 1997, Pletcher sent a series of four letters to Mr. Gates in which he variously threatened to kill Gates, his family and other Microsoft employees if he did not promptly receive the money he was demanding; the sum of five million dollars. The letters to Gates were sent in postal mail, in double envelopes marked personal and confidential. Pletcher said this was so that no one could possibly hold the letter up to a strong light and read through the envelope. The envelopes bore the address of Apple Comp- uter's chief executive and this was done, according to Pletcher, to make it less likely that anyone but Gates would open the envelopes, 'based on ostensibly who wrote them and the personal/confidential notation'. To further cover his tracks, the letters were mailed from different post offices across northern Illinois. FBI agents and postal inspectors raided Pletcher's home last April, and he was arrested at that time on charges of extortion. Although Pletcher allegedly made a complete confession to FBI agents at the time of his arrest, he chose to plead not guilty at his trial. The jury nonetheless found him guilty after hearing the evidence against him and examining the letters he sent to Gates. Bill Gates actually responded personally to the first letter sent by Pletcher; something that Pletcher said 'absolutely stunned' him when he received a reply directly from Gates in his own handwriting. That letter was not released, but sources say it was a sort of takeoff on the old routine first introduced by Jack Benny years ago: Benny was accosted by a mugger who threatened him saying, 'your money or your life.' After no reaction in a few seconds by Benny the mugger angrily says, 'Hurry up! What are you stalling for?' to which Benny replied, 'I am thinking about your offer and trying to decide.' Pletcher was represented by two attornies: Peter Offenbecher and Walter Palmer, based out of Seattle. The attornies argued unsuccess- fully to the jury that Pletcher 'was playing out an imaginative scenario' and never intended to receive the money and would not have harmed Gates or his employees despite the threats. The jury was unconvinced. Sentencing is set for May 29 and at that time Pletcher could recieve imposition of punishment including twenty years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on each of the four counts, or letters written. If this is his first *federal* offense, then barring a specific recommendation by the government seeking harsher punishment, it is likely but by no means assured he would receive a term of federal probation. However based on other events in his recent history which will certainly be brought to the attention of the court by federal prosecutors, it is uncertain what the court will decide is appropriate. For example, even if he receives federal probation on the current matter, he still faces six months in jail in Lake County, Illinois where he was convicted two months ago of selling fake driver's licenses over the Internet. His incarceration on that matter was suspended pending the federal matter which is now concluded except for sentencing. In addition, there is outstanding against Pletcher a civil lawsuit brought by the Illinois attorney general's office for allegedly defrauding several people through a bogus auto brokerage scheme on the Internet, and for running a bogus raffle, or contest on a web site. Besides seeking a permanent injunction to stop Pletcher from operating his scams, the suit asks that he make full restitution to customers and penalties of about $300,000. What seems rather amazing to me about this is that even while Pletcher was awaiting trial in the federal case (he was allowed to remain free pending trial on personal recognizance -- that is, simply his word that he would appear as ordered and submit to the authority of the court) that he kept right on with his scams, including the fake driver's licenses. The license scheme, the fake auto brokerage scheme and the 'internet contest' all got started while he was waiting for trial in the earlier thing with Gates. When he was found guilty in the license scheme and sentenced to jail, that caused the recognizance bond in the federal matter to be revoked. When the feds get finished with him, Lake County, Illinois gets him next. You'd think he might have decided to cool things considerably while he was under federal scrutiny, but then, self-destructive people seldom slow down until some law-enforcement agency brings things to a screeching halt. And Adam Quinn Pletcher does seem like a very self- destructive individual. I suspect we may be hearing more about him in years to come. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:27:41 -0800 Subject: Book Revfiew: "Encyclopedia of Networking: Electronic Edition" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKENNWEE.RVW 980115 "Encyclopedia of Networking: Electronic Edition", Tom Sheldon, 1998, 0-07-882333-1, U$49.99/C$71.95 %A Tom Sheldon tsheldon@ntresearch.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-882333-1 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$49.99/C$71.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 1164 p. + CD-ROM %T "Encyclopedia of Networking: Electronic Edition" Yes, it's an encyclopedia. The entry size is about the same as for Shnier's "Dictionary of Communications and PC Hardware" (cf. BKPCHDCT.RVW) and larger than that of "Newton's Telecom Dictionary" (cf. BKNTTLDC.RVW) which only means that I think Shnier got his title wrong. But this is certainly of encyclopedic size. Entries may be lengthy, but they are not technical. The level of information would suit the needs of a manager who needed to know what type of animal a cell relay was, but doesn't provide the detail necessary to work with a particular topic, or to make informed decisions for planning or purchasing. Corporate or political items seem to be of greater interest than technical ones. You are almost as likely to find an entry for a proprietary product as for a basic standard (although the entries for products do tend to be shorter). Reports are often incomplete in the practical areas: for example, the description of finger is accurate, but the paragraph does not mention that most sites have now shut finger service off. In the explanation of firewalls we learn a lot more about pre-sixteenth century history than the actual workings of proxy servers. Under hypermedia we hear more about how Sheldon actually heard Ted Nelson speak one time than about the details of Xanadu. (There is no entry for Xanadu.) The author sometimes lets his imagination run away with him, as in the case of a kidnapping detection device that would require the implantation of a device with a GPS (Global Positioning System) *and* a transmitter big enough to reach someone useful *and* a battery big enough to power the whole thing, in your kid (see IP [Internet Protocol]). In his attempt to make descriptions simplistic enough for managers, Sheldon also seems to have become a bit cavalier with the facts. IRC (Internet Relay Chat) users do not have to be on the same server, although they do have to be on the same IRC network. An entry for ActiveX generally accepts the Microsoft party line on security. It may surprise pre-1980 users of Apples and PETs that Microsoft started the personal computer revolution. For the sake of the reviewer's blood pressure, we will draw a merciful veil of darkness over the entry on viruses. The author makes no attempt to give the acronym expansion for BNC connector. There is no entry for Kermit or for the important V series standards. The entry for PGP (Pretty Good Privacy, a widely used de facto encryption standard) states that it is designed to integrate with email clients and uses a graphical interface to ease the process of encryption. In fact, while recently integration products have appeared, and graphical versions of PGP itself, for a long time the "command line only" interface was a stumbling block to its universal acceptance. (That and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, of course.) The author makes a very tentative attempt to note the etiology of the word "hacker" as a skilled technologist, but thereafter continues to use the term in a negative way. Hacking, cracking, spoofing, sniffing, and phreaking are conducted by "internal malicious users and the underground community of pranksters, hardened criminals, industrial spies, and international terrorists." Methinks Sheldon has been reading too many thrillers. AIX and AS/400 are listed under IBM AIX and IBM AS/400 but SNA (Systems Network Architecture) and SAA (Systems Application Architecture) are listed as themselves. DES (Data Encryption Standard) has an entry, but is actually explained under cryptography. Acronyms, even when not words, are ordered as if they were words, rather than as collections of initial letters. The end of each major article gives related entries, of course, but often provides URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) for sites that might have a bearing on the topic. The majority of these appear to be company home pages. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKENNWEE.RVW 980115 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:58:17 -0500 From: Mike Pollock Subject: AOL and Tel-Save Approach Half a Million Long Distance Lines Company Press Release AOL and Tel-Save Approach Half a Million Long Distance Lines DULLES, Va. and NEW HOPE, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 25, 1998--America Online Inc. and Tel-Save Holdings Inc. [Nasdaq:TALK - news] said Wednesday that they expect to have generated approximately 500,000 telephone lines by the end of the current quarter under their joint agreement for marketing long distance services to AOL members. ``We think this might be one of the fastest share shifts in the history of the long-distance industry -- and we're only just beginning,'' said Dan Borislow, president of Tel-Save Holdings. ``Tel-Save pioneered the practice of online marketing and customer support for long distance services,'' said Barry Schuler, president, AOL Interactive Services. ``This is a win-win-win situation for Tel-Save, America Online and, most importantly, our members, enabling us to provide a real benefit for the AOL members who visit Keyword: LD and sign up in seconds for the best value in long distance -- long distance service for 9 cents a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.'' In addition to providing interstate long distance service for 9 cents a minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the AOL Long Distance Savings Plan offers AOL members online billing detail including the ability to view previous months and the ability to check the billing detail for calls made just minutes before, and customer service 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- all without usage requirements, sign-up charges or monthly fees. America Online Inc., (NYSE: AOL - news) based in Dulles, is the world's leader in branded interactive services and content. America Online operates two worldwide Internet online services: AOL, with more than 11 million members; and CompuServe, with more than two million members. America Online also operates AOL Studios, the world's leading creator of original interactive content. Other branded Internet services operated by America Online include AOL.COM, the world's most accessed Web site from home; AOL Instant Messenger, allowing instant communication with all Internet users; and AOL NetFind, AOL's comprehensive guide to the Internet. Tel-Save Holdings Inc. is a nationwide provider of telecommunications services utilizing its state-of-the-art telecommunications network - One Better Net (OBN). Tel-Save headquarters are located at 6805 Route 202, in New Hope. Contact: AOL Ann Brackbill, 703/265-1746 Richard Hanlon, 703/265-3573 or Tel-Save Dan Borislow, 215/862-1082 ------------------------------ Subject: Call54 Now Available in West Virginia Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:52:00 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Call54 Now Available in West Virginia By Todd Meyers, The Charleston Gazette, W.Va. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 24--If you have a phone number, 75 cents to spend and a little curiosity, you can find out the name and address of the person or business assigned to that number, courtesy of Bell Atlantic's new CALL54. Despite sentiments raised by some that the reverse directory service equates to an invasion of privacy, CALL54 is now available to West Virginia customers in Charleston and southern reaches of the state. "You can opt out if you don't want your name and address given out," said Paul Miller, Bell Atlantic spokesman. Customers concerned about their privacy may phone their local Bell Atlantic office to have their telephone numbers removed from the CALL54 database at any time for no charge. Names and addresses of non-published numbers cannot be accessed through CALL54. "I was quite against it at the outset," said Dannie Walker, technical analyst with the state Public Service Commission, which recently approved the use of CALL54. "There just didn't seem to be enough in the public interest that outweighed the downsides of the service." Walker said he provided people who complained about Bell Atlantic's proposal with a copy of the CALL54 filing and invited them to voice their concerns with the PSC. "Most of the people didn't respond," he said. "That was a little bit disappointing." After learning that customers can both opt out of the CALL54 database and block the service from their own phone lines, Walker has since softened his stance. "If a criminal wants the information, they're going to get it from another source," he said. "If it does turn out to be a problem in West Virginia, we can revisit it." CALL54 is designed to help businesses update customer and delivery lists and to assist customers in verifying the addresses of people who have moved, find out whose number appears in their Caller ID box and locate businesses. Bell Atlantic has offered CALL54 in New Jersey since 1995. "About one-third of our customers already use other sources to get this type of information, and thousands of others have expressed a need for an easy, accurate reverse directory service," said LeAnn Trimpey, CALL54 product manager at Bell Atlantic. "Options include the Internet, CD-ROMs, 900 services and paper crisscross directories available in most libraries. But with CALL54, all you need is a telephone." Bell Atlantic said that CALL54 will prove profitable in West Virginia, although the company declined to provide projected revenues from the service."We feel there is an excellent market for this type of service in West Virginia," Miller said. "West Virginia has the highest rate of Caller ID users per capita in any of our markets. We can't explain why. With that interest in Caller ID, it might very well transfer over to interest in CALL54." To use CALL54, customers dial 555-5454. An automated voice welcomes them and provides instructions on how to use the service. When the caller enters an area code and telephone number, a computer-generated voice speaks the name, address and ZIP code of the individual or business to whom the number is assigned. Callers can press 1 to repeat the listing; press 2 to have the name spelled; or press 3 to have the address spelled. Each 75-cent call allows callers to request information on three separate numbers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech has had this service available in the 312/630/708/773/847 area codes for probably forty years. When everything here was in 312, a reverse listing could be obtained by dialing (exchange)-2080, whence an operator would answer and look in a file box of index cards on the Chief Operator's desk and tell you the associated name and address. Eventually all the 'two-oh-eight-oh' lines, as they were called, were merged into 796-9600, but still answered manually by an operator who punched it in the computer and read back what it said. Now-days, use any of the above area codes plus 796-9600 and you reach a computer which responds as described in Tad Cook's message. Two-oh-eight-oh was a free service, as was 796-9600 for quite a few years. Now they get something for calling it it you are within this LATA; I suspect long distance callers just pay toll and nothing more. They have never allowed for any 'opt-out' provision. If you have a listed number in the above area codes, you are in the database. If your number is either non-pub or not listed for some reason then you are not in the database. Two inquiries are allowed for each call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bell Logo Question Date: 24 Mar 1998 01:44:33 -0500 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Ernst Smith wrote: > What are the legal rules for usage of the "Bell" name and logo? For > example, with advent of local competition a ILEC might decide that the > Bell logo, which they abandoned after divestiure, might have some > (sentimental) marketing value. Can that RBOC resume usage of the Bell > name and logo? Yes. Only Bellcore (now) can't. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Bob Gramza Subject: Re: Bell Logo Question Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:49:37 -0600 Organization: Ameritech Interactive Media Services, Inc. I believe the trademark is still the property of the regional Bell Operating Companies. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 16:53:01 +0100 From: Mark Naftel Reply-To: Subject: Re: Bell Logo Question At the time of the AT&T/Bell System Divestiture in 1984, as a part of the modification of final judgment (MFJ), the seven newly created Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) - do not forget RBOCs are not independent local exchange carriers (ILECs) - plus Bellcore were given the right to use the Bell name and existing Bell trademark. In addition, Cincinnati Bell and SNET (now acquired by an RBOC) also had "Bell" rights. There was an intellectual property rights agreement detailing rights and use of the trademark and other IP rights, such as patents. Not all the RBOCs chose to exercise their right to use the trademark, but I would assume they still could if they wished. A principle of trademark law, however, is that a trademark must be used at some point, or rights are lost. While Bellcore still uses the Bell in its name (Bellcore at some point was a type of abbreviation for Bell Communications Research), I think it is no longer using the Bell logo trademark - check its web site - with the consummation of the sale to SIAC. Finally, do not make the mistake of referring to an RBOC as part of the Bell System. The Bell System has not existed since 1984. Mark Naftel ------------------------------ From: ABFCNZ@gev.fop.com (Fred Goodwin) Subject: Re: Bell Logo Question Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:21:55 GMT Organization: SBC-Technology Resources, Inc. In article , es008d@biko.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) wrote: > What are the legal rules for usage of the "Bell" name and logo? For > example, with advent of local competition a ILEC might decide that the > Bell logo, which they abandoned after divestiure, might have some > (sentimental) marketing value. Can that RBOC resume usage of the Bell > name and logo? IANAL, but I don't think the RBOCs "abandoned" the Bell logo at Divestiture. When the divestiture settlement was agreed to (c. Jan '82), AT&T planned to keep the Bell logo. The Baby Bells naturally wanted it also. Judge Greene took his time deciding, and in the meantime, the Baby Bell holding companies had to come up with new corporate names and logos. Some (Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, NYNEX, USWest) did not wait for the judge's decision. Others (BellSouth, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell) gambled and waited on the judge, who eventually ruled in their favor. The only AT&T subsidiary allowed to use the name "Bell" after 1984 was Bell Labs. AFAIK, even Pacific Telesis used the Bell logo for its telco subsidiaries, Pacific Bell Telephone and Nevada Bell Telephone. Again, IANAL, but if I were advising an ILEC, I would tell them to consider carefully the likely RBOC legal response if they decided to use the Bell logo. (email and sig are rot-13'd; replace NOSPAM with fgoodwin) ======================================================================== * Fred Goodwin, CMA * Opinions are my own and do not * * SBC-Technology Resources, Inc. * reflect any positions of SBC-TRI * * Austin, Texas * ABFCNZ@gev.fop.com * ======================================================================== ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #46 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 31 00:42:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA02746; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:42:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:42:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803310542.AAA02746@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #47 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Mar 98 00:42:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 47 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Browse the Web Undercover (Monty Solomon) Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. (Linc Madison) Canadian PCS Provider Uses Antique Bus to Promote Service (Nigel Allen) US West Discovers Massive Possible Slamming (Tad Cook) Telecom Update (Canada) #126, March 30, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Browse the Web Undercover Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:05:36 -0500 http://www.zdnet.com/products/content/pccg/1104/293462.html Browse the Web Undercover April, 1998 Your browser is selling you out. Without your knowledge, it's offering up personal information to marketers who are only too happy to bombard you with product offers, ads, and golden opportunities to make money at home. And once their servers lock in your information, there's nothing to stop them from selling it. But there's a way to beat them at their own game: Go undercover. Here's how to protect yourself on the Net. First Line of Defense: Maintain a low profile while browsing the Web by using a proxy server, which sits between your PC and the sites you visit. Instead of capturing your information, Web servers see only the proxy's identity. If you work in a large office or corporation and connect to the Web via a T1 line, you're probably protected by a proxy server -- like Netscape Proxy Server or Microsoft Proxy Server -- or a firewall. But if you aren't covered by that kind of protection, you should check out The Anonymizer, a public proxy server at www.anonymizer.com. The Anonymizer serves as a surrogate for you, retrieving as many Web pages as you wish from as many sites as you wish. It displays the pages you request in a frame, so you know when it's working. If you're using Anonymizer's free service, your browser window will display ads and there is a 30-second delay. Another version does the job without ads or delays for a quarterly fee of $15. Paying for Anonymizer's service, or using a free personal proxy server like Lucent's Personalized Web Assistant (see "Fight Back!" page 136) are the best ways to browse incognito all the time. In addition to keeping your e-mail address from nosy servers, Anonymizer's proxy service keeps your ISP's name private and the URL of the page you visit before you've clicked on the site. Anonymizer also maintains your anonymity during FTP sessions and disables Java. Do-It-Yourself Anonymizing: A more straightforward approach to Web privacy is to temporarily remove your personal information from your browser. This is a must when browsing new sites. After you remove details like your name and e-mail address from your browser, the only info a Web site can sniff out is your ISP's address and geographical location. Here's a quick rundown of how to get at and remove personal data from Netscape Navigator versions 3.0 and 4.0. This stealth tip doesn't apply to Microsoft Internet Explorer because it doesn't have a proprietary e-mail application. Instead, IE links to Microsoft Outlook, for example -- or whatever program you use for e-mail. Before you delete any information from your Navigator settings, copy the information into another file. You'll have to restore it before you can read your e-mail later. Navigator 3.0: From the Options menu, select Mail and News Preferences. Click on the Servers tab, and delete the information in the mail server and username fields. Then select the Identity tab and delete info in the name, e-mail, reply to, and organization fields. Navigator 4.0: From the Edit menu, select Preferences and click on the Identity category listed to the left of the Preferences window. Delete the information in each of the five displayed fields. Next click on the Mail Server category and delete the information in the three fields that appear. (If the Identity and Mail Server categories are not visible, click on Mail & Groups.) Java? No Thanks! Java and JavaScript applets can take control of your browser. Among other tricks, JavaScript can send you to a Web page you didn't select, open a new preaddressed e-mail message, or send internal commands to your browser -- all without your having selected or clicked on anything. So while you're modifying your browser's settings, disable Java and JavaScript too. Navigator 3.0: From the Options menu, select Network Preferences, then click on the Languages tab. Uncheck the boxes for Java and JavaScript. Navigator 4.0: From the Edit menu, select Preferences and click on Advanced. Deselect Enable Java and Enable JavaScript. Internet Explorer 3.0: From the View menu, select Options, and click on the Security tab. Uncheck the boxes next to Run ActiveX scripts (which, in IE3, encompasses all types of scripting) and Enable Java programs. Internet Explorer 4.0: To disable Java, select Internet Options from the View menu, then click on the Advanced tab. Now double-click on Java VM, if it isn't already open, and uncheck both boxes under this header. Disabling JavaScript is a bit more involved: Click on the Security tab. Choose whether you want JavaScript to work on just certain Web sites or for the entire Internet. Truly Anonymous FTP: If you still use an FTP client program to download files, make certain it's set to give a bogus password, like guest@unknown.com. If your browser lets you, turn off the feature that sends your e-mail address as a password for anonymous FTP sessions. Navigator 3.0:Go to the Options menu and select Network Preferences. Click on the Protocols tab and uncheck Send Email Address as Anonymous FTP Password. Navigator 4.0: Go to the Edit menu and select Preferences. Click on Advanced and uncheck Send Email Address as Anonymous FTP Password. Internet Explorer users can't change this setting in their browsers; your log-in and password information is handled by whichever FTP client you use. Free Fixes: Print Web Pages. It can be frustrating to print Web pages, especially when they include frames. What you may not know is that your browser will print whatever it thinks is the current frame. Select the text in the frame you want to print, and presto! If you want to print all the frames at once and you're using Internet Explorer 4.0 or Navigator 4.0, you're in luck. Just click on Print to view your options. Or download an Internet printing utility, like ClickBook from Blue Squirrel (www.bluesquirrel.com/clickbook). If all else fails, copy and paste the contents of a Web page, frames and all, into your word processor and then print. Insider Info: Stay Connected. Ack! You're reading a Web page and click on the next link only to find that your Internet connection has gone south. Most Internet service providers disconnect you if your account is inactive for 10 or 15 minutes. To trick your ISP and keep your connection alive, you need to generate some activity every few minutes. One way is to set your mail reader to check for new mail every 10 minutes. You can also download RAS+95 (shown here and available for download at our Web site at www.pccomputing.com) and activate its ping monitor. Other options? Turn on RealNetworks RealAudio and listen to Internet radio. Free Fixes: Fight Back! Do something about unwanted jabs at your privacy with these free services and downloads. Link to them at www.pccomputing.com. www.anonymizer.com Browse the Web without being identified. www.junkbusters.com Junkbusters weeds out spam and acts as a proxy server too. www.lpwa.com:8000/privacy.html Roam the Internet without revealing your true identity with the Lucent Personalized Web Assistant. www.eflash.com Run eFilter before you check your mail to purge spam. www.omron.com/oas/index.html Use Omron's MailJail to squash spam. www.roadblock.net Set up a border patrol between junk e-mail and your PC. www.contactplus.com Block junk e-mail before it hits your hard drive with Spam Buster. www.luckman.com Browse the Web cookie-free. www.rsa.com Protect your e-mail with Secure MIME encryption. Quick Results Get It DUN Can't get on the Net? It might be your Dial-up Networking connection. Check your password and username for misspellings and incorrect capitalization. To view these settings, right-click on the Dial-up Networking (DUN) connection and choose Connect. Verify if DUN is pointing to the right modem. Check to see if the names of your mail servers are typed in properly. If your PC has a static IP address, verify that it's entered correctly. Right-click on the DUN connection, select Properties, click on Server Type, and click on TCP/IP. Does your ISP require that you specify IP addresses for its Domain Name Servers (DNS)? Verify if the DNS entries are correct while in the TCP/IP dialog box. You'll need to dig out your ISP's sign-up documentation or call its tech support to compare addresses. --------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple other things that help prevent your personal browsing habits from becoming known are to set the history deletion dates to either zero or one (or perhaps even to set the browser to forget everything once the present session is done); to keep your bookmarks or 'favorites' as they are known in IE-4 in a separate file out of reach of snoopers; and totally delete the cookie file once in a while as I do. Some web sites will go look at your entire cookie file if you let them, and they'll look over your bookmarks as well. Regarding the mail program in Netscape, since I do not use Netscape to get mail, I just left that blank all the time but you could put totally dummy information there also. My sole bookmark entry in Netscape or IE-4 is an entry which points to the page c:\windows\system\bookmarks.htm ... and my default 'home page' for both browsers is c:\windows\startbrowser.htm, with a background of clouds.bmp, and a hyperlink to my bookmarks.htm page. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:05:53 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM There has been quite a lot of discussion recently about the concept of "wireless only" overlay area codes, particularly since the Colorado Public Utilities Commission appears to be considering such a plan for the Denver area. The FCC and other agencies have ruled that wireless overlays are not allowed, because they represent "discrimination on the basis of class of service." In short, such an overlay would place wireless carriers at a possible competitive disadvantage against wirelines carriers. However, a frequent reader of this forum pointed something out to me in private e-mail: wireless overlays are not only contrary to current policy, but also impossible on a technical level! The reason is quite simple: one of the underpinnings of Local Number Portability is that you can change your service to *ANY* carrier while keeping your existing number. That specifically *INCLUDES* wireless carriers. Thus, you can force all existing wireless customers to change to the new wireless overlay, but they can then turn around, order a POTS line, and then convert the POTS number to the wireless service under LNP. There is some expense involved in the install charge on the POTS number, but I'd bet there would be a sizeable number of wireless customers who would be willing to shell out an extra $50 in order to have a cellphone in the "traditional" area code. (Here in California, we're talking $34.75 basic install plus $6.00/month basic service, put in the LNP order to switch the number to the cellphone as soon as the POTS line is turned on, easily get out for under $60.) More to the point, it would be hopelessly confusing if a prefix that had some combination of wireless and wireline numbers were converted in a wireless-only overlay. You would have three choices, each of them untenable: 1. Leave all the numbers in the wireline area code 2. Change all the numbers to the wireless area code 3. Have a prefix where NXX-1234 stays NPA1 but NXX-1235 changes to NPA2 The bottom line is that you can't have both LNP and wireless-only overlays. Since the U.S. is firmly committed to LNP, the wireless-only overlay is dead and buried as far as the United States is concerned. Anyone who wants to argue that we should proceed with wireless overlays must first address the question of how you can reconcile the conflict with Local Number Portability issues. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} had a very inter- esting article on local number portability in the March 30 issue. Apparently it will be starting in full force here as of April 1, which I note, is April Fool's Day, for all the fools at the various telcos who think it will go over smoothly as planned. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:27:17 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canadian PCS Provider Uses Antique Bus to Promote Service The following press release from Fido, a Canadian PCS provider, was sufficiently surreal that I thought I should share with with other TELECOM Digest readers. (I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://www.newswire.ca/ I don't work for Fido or Canada NewsWire.) FIDO UNLEASHED IN THE STREETS OF GREATER TORONTO TORONTO, March 27 - With tail wagging in excitement and motor revving in anticipation, the Fidomobile, an automotive classic, was unleashed today in the streets of Toronto. With the removal of the world's largest dog collar, the Fidomobile began its tour to deliver PCS technology into the hands of Greater Toronto residents during the next two months. Last year, Microcell Solutions brought Fido to Torontonians by means of an airship. This year, it brings Fido back by using the streets of Toronto to show off its colours. Throughout April and May, the Fidomobile will be making its rounds to communities and special events around the GTA. Members of the public are invited to tour the bus, enter on-site contests, receive entries for in-store contests, and make a free phone call on a Fido to anyone in North America. One dollar ($1.00) from every Fido(R) handset sold between April and August will be donated to Canine Vision Canada Dog Guides -- a foundation dedicated to training seeing-eye dogs for the blind and visually impaired. The Fidomobile was originally built in 1942 by General Motors as part of the "Futurliner" series designed to show off the latest technological advances in the automotive industry. Of the 12 ever built, it is one of the three that remain in operation, and is the only one in Canada. "The Fidomobile is a perfect symbol of the Fido PCS revolution," said Gary Switzer, Vice-President and General Manager, Central Region, Microcell Solutions. "It underscores the unique approach we take to wireless communications. In its day, the Fidomobile's air conditioning and power steering were a rarity. Today, true per-second billing and wireless data transmission are features unique to Fido." Refurbished to its full glory in the early 1990s, the Futurliner is now adorned with Fido logos and colours. Its sleek art deco design and truly unique dimensions (10 m long and 2.5 m wide) attract attention wherever it goes. The driver enters through the front of the bus, ascends a spiral staircase to a three-sided bubble-shaped cabin, looking out from 3.5 meters above the road. "We're putting Fido out on the streets and showing off the freedom and convenience PCS brings," explained Switzer. "With no long-term contract to sign, Fido offers a vast array of services. Call Waiting and Call Display are just some of the features available." Fido offers two extremely competitive monthly airtime packages: $40 for 400 minutes, or $20 for 100 minutes. Fido minutes can be used any time of day and are always calculated by the second. Call Waiting, Call Forwarding and Conference Call are included in Fido Service, with Customized Services also available, such as Call Display, Personal Voice Messaging, Fax Messaging and Text Messaging. Fido's long-distance rates are 15 cents per minute within the same province and 20 cents per minute for calls to the rest of Canada and the United States, usable any time of day. A 15% discount on local phone company rates applies to all international calls. Fido operates on the GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) platform, the dominant world standard for wireless telecommunications technology, deployed in over 100 countries. Microcell offers seamless roaming in Hong Kong, the U.K., France, Switzerland, Germany and in over 500 U.S. cities, with several new countries to be added very soon. Fido Service is marketed by Microcell Solutions Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (TSE, ME: MTI.B; Nasdaq: MICTF). Microcell launched its service in November 1996, and was the first company to offer PCS at 1.9 GHz in Canada. Microcell has been a public company since October 15, 1997. Its principal shareholders include: Telesystem Ltd., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., and Le Groupe Vidotron Lte. The company's head office is located in Montreal; it currently employs more than 1,000 people. http://www.microcell.ca http://www.fido.ca Fido is a registered trademark of Microcell Solutions Inc. (end of press release) For further information: Source: Brian Smith, Opsis Communications & Marketing, (416) 368-8998; Information: Victoria Ollers, Microcell Telecommunications Inc., (416) 822-2288 [Note from NDA: Just as a footnote, this Fido has nothing to do with FidoNet, the international amateur BBS network.] forwarded by Nigel Allen, 8 Silver Ave., Toronto, Ontario M6R 1X8, Canada ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am surprised that the BBS operators' network does not have the name 'Fido' tradmarked or otherwise protected; or do they? Will there be any sort of conflict using the name 'Fido' in Canada where the BBS operators are concerned? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: US West Discovers Massive Possible Slamming Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:44:12 PST From: tad@ssc.com US West Discovers Massive Possible Slamming DENVER, March 27 /PRNewswire/ -- U S WEST Communications (NYSE: USW) has discovered possible incidents of mass slamming -- switching of customers' long-distance services without their permission -- in Minnesota and Washington, one involving 70 percent of an entire community. On March 10, a long-distance company submitted a computer file to U S WEST Communications to switch 3,877 customers served by U S WEST's Beard switching office in Minneapolis to that company's long-distance service. The switching office serves 54,356 lines in parts of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park and Edina. All of the changes involved in this order that U S WEST is aware of are in the 929 exchange within area code 612. On March 11, the same long-distance company submitted a computer file to U S WEST Communications to switch 4,647 customers served by U S WEST's Colville, Washington, switching office to its long-distance service. That's 70 percent of all the customers served by the Colville call-switching office. The office serves 4,965 residential and 1,657 business lines with the prefix 684 within area code 509. U S WEST employees processing the Minnesota changes became suspicious when they noticed that a large number of lines in a single call-switching office were being changed to the same carrier and asked the long-distance carrier to confirm the order. The long-distance company told U S WEST that a company that resells its service had submitted the order and that the reseller had verification forms for the orders. Based on the long-distance company's verification, U S WEST employees in Minnesota processed the changes, as they are required to do by law. U S WEST employees processing the Washington changes also became suspicious when they, too, noticed that so many customers served by a single call-switching office were being changed to the same carrier. The long-distance carrier again told U S WEST that a company that resells its service had submitted the order, but said it could not locate the verification forms for the changes. Because the long-distance company could not produce verification forms, U S WEST stopped processing the Colville order. About half of the changes had been made before U S WEST became suspicious and asked for verification. U S WEST does not know whether the same reseller was involved in both incidents. `We're still investigating to determine why this happened and how many customers were affected,` said Solomon D. Trujillo, president and chief executive officer of U S WEST Communications. `However, we've gotten a large number of complaints from customers reporting that they did not authorize a change in long-distance companies.` `We are working to promptly switch any customers whose long-distance service was changed without their permission back to their original long- distance company,` Trujillo said. `Any charges for switching customers back to their original long-distance company will be billed to the carriers involved. Customers will not have to pay for the changes.` Although U S WEST is still investigating the incidents in Minnesota and Washington, `We're asking the news media to alert customers so they can check to see if they've been slammed,` Trujillo said. `Whatever the final conclusion as to what happened here,` Trujillo added, `these two incidents should be powerful reminders that it's time to put an end to slamming, something we've long advocated. If it turns out that entire communities can be slammed, that's just inexcusable.` Slamming has long been the number one complaint consumers and businesses have about their phone service. U S WEST Communications alone received requests from nearly 400,000 customers last year who reported being slammed. If current trends continue, the number of customers contacting U S WEST for help because of slamming will easily exceed half a million this year. `The solution is simple,` Trujillo said. `Punish the wrongdoers by imposing fines against companies guilty of repeated slamming. And take away the financial incentives for slamming by ensuring that the money customers pay for long-distance calls go to the company they choose -- not the company that slammed them. Right now, slammers get to keep the money for any calls customers makes while they're slammed. That's just wrong.` Customers who want to find out if their long-distance company has been switched can dial 1-700-555-4141 from the phone line they want to check. The call is free and will connect the caller to an automated system that tells them the name of the long-distance company assigned to the phone line from which the call is placed. Any customers who have been slammed should contact U S WEST's customer service bureau at 1-800-922-1879 to have their service switched back to their original long-distance company. U S WEST Communications provides a full range of telecommunications services -- including wireline, wireless PCS and data networking -- to more than 25 million customers in 14 western and midwestern states. The company is one of two major groups that make up U S WEST, a company in the connections business, helping customers share information, entertainment and communications services in local markets worldwide. U S WEST's other major group, U S WEST MediaOne Group, is involved in domestic and international cable and telephone, wireless communications, and directory and information services. U S WEST has proposed splitting the two groups into separate public companies sometime after mid-1998, pending shareowner and other approvals. U S WEST Communications can be found on the Internet at http://www.uswest.com. SOURCE U S WEST Communications ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:22:13 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #126, March 30, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 126: March 30, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Telus and AT&T Weigh Merger... ** ...And Bell Canada Responds ** CRTC Okays Joint Marketing, Bundling ** fONOROLA Plans Name Change ** Public Hearing on NBTel Cable TV License Begins ** Ottawa Rejects CFIB Rate Appeal ** Bell Seeks Lower Business Rates ** BCE, Bell to Merge HQ Staff ** BC Tel Business Rate Changes Okayed ** Cantel Recruits More U.S. Execs ** Comments Sought on Satellite Licenses ** How to Appeal a CRTC Decision ** Nortel to Test Internet on Power Lines ** NBTel Puts Directory on Screen Phone ** Fido Enters Alberta ** TMI Offers Continental Packet Data ** Is There A LAN-Based PBX in Your Future? ============================================================ TELUS AND AT&T WEIGH MERGER...: Following a report published in the Globe and Mail, Telus Corporation confirmed that it is "in discussions with AT&T that could lead to a possible business combination." Telus may acquire the two-thirds stake in AT&T Canada Long Distance Services now held by three banks. ...AND BELL CANADA RESPONDS: Bell Canada replied to the Telus announcement with a statement that Stentor members are discussing how to realign their alliance "to serve our customers and to look for new business opportunities." ** Bell also announced its intention to develop a national service delivering broadband and Internet capabilities from coast to coast. CRTC OKAYS JOINT MARKETING, BUNDLING: CRTC Decision 98-4 eliminates restrictions which prevented telcos from jointly marketing wireless and wireline services and sets out rules for pricing services which "bundle" tariffed and non- tariffed offerings. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d984_0.txt fONOROLA PLANS NAME CHANGE: Long distance carrier fONOROLA has announced that it will change its name this year, to avoid legal disputes with Motorola in the United States. PUBLIC HEARING ON NBTEL CABLE TV LICENSE BEGINS: On March 30, the CRTC begins a public hearing in Saint John, New Brunswick, to consider NBTel's application for a commercial broadcasting distribution (cable TV) license. This is the first such application by a Canadian telco. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/hearing/1998/n981_0.txt OTTAWA REJECTS CFIB RATE APPEAL: On March 20, the Federal Cabinet turned down the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's appeal against the July 1997 repricing of Bell Canada's business lines and trunks. (See Telecom Update #101) BELL SEEKS LOWER BUSINESS RATES: In a CRTC application today, Bell Canada proposes to reduce the monthly charge for all business local lines from $45.45 to $39.95. The filing also includes reductions to Megaroute rates. ** On March 26, Bell announced that it will not implement the CRTC-approved 15 cents/month increase in local residential rates this year. (See Telecom Update #123) BCE, BELL TO MERGE HQ STAFF: On March 25, Bell Canada and its parent, BCE, merged their corporate offices. The companies expect to eliminate about 200 positions, 15% of their combined corporate staffs. ** Fred Rucker, Group Vice-President Strategy at Bell Canada, has left the company to join Global One in the U.S., and Norm Simon, Group Vice-President Communications, is "pursuing other opportunities." Rucker and Simon were the last remaining members of the executive team recruited by former Bell President John McLennan. BC TEL BUSINESS RATE CHANGES OKAYED: CRTC Decision 98-288 approves BC Tel's plan to restructure rates for single line and multiline local business service into rate bands. Changes range from a $16.85/month increase to an $8.80/month decrease. (See Telecom Update #120) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98288_0.txt CANTEL RECRUITS MORE U.S. EXECS: Rogers Cantel has named William Gibson as President of its Western Region and Jeffrey Locke as Senior Vice-President Marketing. Both previously held executive positions with Sprint PCS in the United States. COMMENTS SOUGHT ON SATELLITE LICENSES: Industry Canada has issued a "Consultation Paper" on changes to satellite licensing policy resulting from last year's WTO agreements on telecommunications. The deadline for written submissions on the policy is June 30. The full text of the paper can be found at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01587e.html HOW TO APPEAL A CRTC DECISION: CRTC Telecom Public Notice 98-6 sets out guidelines for applications to "Review and Vary" CRTC decisions. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p986_0.txt NORTEL TO TEST INTERNET ON POWER LINES: Northern Telecom and the UK's United Utilities have formed a joint venture called Nor.Web to develop and market Digital Powerline, a product which enables high-speed data communication over normal electrical lines. Seven power utilities in Europe and Asia have agreed to test the product. NBTEL PUTS DIRECTORY ON SCREEN PHONE: Customers of NBTel can now look up telephone listings using the screen display on a Vista 350 telephone. The PowerPages service also provides free "Name That Number" service. FIDO ENTERS ALBERTA: On March 25, Microcell Solutions launched its Fido PCS service in Calgary. TMI OFFERS CONTINENTAL PACKET DATA: TMI Communications has introduced a satellite-based packet data network that is available anywhere in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean. IS THERE A LAN-BASED PBX IN YOUR FUTURE? In the April issue of Telemanagement, John Riddell looks at the potential and promise of LAN-based business telephone systems. Also in this issue: ** Lis Angus interviews WIC Connexus executives on their plans for wireless broadband services. ** Gerry Blackwell reports on the experiences of U.S. cable companies which are now offering voice telephone service. To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or use the Online Subscription Form at http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #47 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 31 01:56:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA05675; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:56:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199803310656.BAA05675@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #48 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Mar 98 01:56:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell System Practices / SPAM Blocking (Lauren Weinstein) French Minitel Hinders Internet Deployment (oldbear@arctos.com) NYS (Bell Atlantic) to Get 'Per Activation' 3-way Calling (Danny Burstein) E-mail 'Spammer' Settles Lawsuit For $2 Million (oldbear@arctos.com) Washington Governor Serves Up `Spam' Bill (Tad Cook) BellSouth Billboards Ring up Wrong Area Code (Stan Schwartz) FCC Adds Flexibility For Troubled Cellular Firms (Monty Solomon) Harvard Offers Legal Cybercourse (Monty Solomon) Wireless Phones in a Parking Lot (Alan Bunch) Recent Victim in Phone Scam (Lisa Watson) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Bell System Practices / SPAM Blocking Date: Mon, 30 Mar 98 21:04:32 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Greetings. Yes, two unrelated topics... First, a recent message in the digest commented on the high quality of old Bell System Practices (known as BSPs in the trade). They were indeed a marvel of detailed technical writing, and are great fun to review. They were also even practical. One of my favorites was the instructions for setting the "totalizer" (coin counter) on 70's-era payphones (paystations). The text ran something along these lines: "To adjust the totalizer to the desired amount, use a KS-1234567-L2 paystation totalizer adjusting tool or a bent paper clip." I don't know anyone who ever even saw the official adjusting tool. The bent paper clip was a crucial item in most telephone craftspersons' toolboxes. - - - Another recent item in the digest mentioned the problems that PacBell has been having with SPAM. As most readers will know, these problems are epidemic around the net. SPAM and other forms of UBE (Unsolicited Bulk E-mail) continue to grow in both sheer volume and in the range of resources (machine, human, time, you name it...) that they consume. These messages frequently promote various frauds, get-rich-quick schemes, illegal merchandise, a remarkable range of pornography, and in general a whole pile of garbage, to use polite terminology. Judging from concerns I hear and see every day, many persons consider SPAM/UBE to be a direct invasion of their privacy and a matter of greatly increasing concern to the telecommunications and computer industries, and to their subscribers and customers. I've been taking steps here at the PRIVACY Forum to at least cut down on the quantity of received SPAM/UBE for quite sometime. The PRIVACY Forum Digest is moderated, but I still have to plow through all the received SPAM/UBE. Due to the continuing requests for details, I've now made the complete e-mail block list for the PRIVACY Forum (the VORTEX.COM block list) available, along with additional information which may be of interest to anyone concerned about these issues. The block list itself is updated daily. For the complete details, please see: http://www.vortex.com/mailblock.html --Lauren-- Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Moderator, PRIVACY Forum http://www.vortex.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:16:43 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: French Minitel hinders Internet deployment Summarized from the {Wall Street Journal}, March 26, 1998: I WANT MY MINITEL! Almost 20 years ago, France became the first networked nation with the deployment of the Minitel, a low-tech terminal that citizens could use to do everything from check the weather to order a pizza. Now, the country's 35 million subscribers are loathe to give up their beloved Minitel and go online with the Internet: "The Minitel... could end up hindering the development of new and promising applications of information technology," warned Prime Minister Jospin last summer, adding that France's technology gap "could soon have dire repercussions on competitiveness and employment." To bring the populace up to speed, Minitel owner France Telecom is planning to deploy next-generation terminals that will access both Minitel and the Internet, but French Internet-industry executives say such hybrid solutions merely encourage users to keep thinking "Minitel," rather than "Internet." "While we sit and worry about the Minitel and ways to get around it, we could be throwing our whole future away," says one. as summarized in {EduPage} ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:52:26 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS (Bell Atlantic) to Get 'Per Activation' 3-way Calling From the "notice of proposed tariff", found in the {NY Daily News}, 25-Mar-1998. Notice is hereby .... effective April 12, 1998... Customers have the option to subscribe (on a monthly flate rate), ... or use Usage Threeway Calling on a per-activation basis. Residence Business Per activation: $0.75 $0.75 Monthly cap: $6.00 $7.50 Note, by the way, that this monthly cap is roughly twice as much as the flat rate option, which, in the general scheme of pricing, seems a reasonable compromise to me. (especially compared to other telcos that don't cap these expenses...) Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There should be a provision to remove it entirely from the lines of subscribers who do not want it at all as well. Ameritech had more or less the above plan, but allowed for complete removal if a call was made to the business office. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:42:44 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: E-mail 'Spammer' Settles Lawsuit For $2 Million LOS ANGELES (AP) - March 29, 1998 - A company that once sent as many as 25 million unsolicited e-mail ads a day has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit aimed at ending the so-called "spamming." Under a consent decree filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Cyber Promotions Inc. also must stop sending unsolicited bulk e-mailings to customers of Earthlink Network Inc., {The New York Times} reported Sunday, citing documents that Earthlink released Friday. "The most important benefit of this judgment is the message we've sent to spammers that illegally tap our resources and clog up the Internet with this trash -- we won't stand for it," said Charles Garry Betty, chief executive of the Pasadena-based Earthlink, which provides Internet service to more than 450,000 people. Cyber Promotions, based in Dresher, Pennsylvania, was considered the largest purveyor of unsolicited e-mail ads. A similar injunction against the company was issued last year in a lawsuit filed by America Online, the world's largest online service. Cyber Promotions has been inactive for several months since its own Internet provider refused to continue providing a connection, the Times said. Critics complain that the junk e-mails slow down receipt of genuine messages and invade the privacy of e-mail users. Programmers continually are upgrading computer programs designed to block the unwanted messages. California is one of about a dozen states considering laws to limit unsolicited commercial e-mail. Last week, Washington became the first state to enact such legislation. Congress also is looking into the matter. ------------------------------ Subject: Washington Governor Serves Up `Spam' Bill Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:19:40 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Washington Governor Serves Up `Spam' Bill By Peter Lewis, The Seattle Times Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News SEATTLE--Mar. 26--Gov. Gary Locke on Wednesday signed into law a bill aimed at curbing unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail, popularly known as spam. As a result, Washington becomes the first state in the nation to have passed legislation that will curb, if not eliminate, what many e-mail users consider to be an annoyance or worse, according to California lawyer David Kramer. A recognized expert on Internet e-mail and legislative efforts to control it, Kramer has testified before a state House committee in favor of a tougher version of Washington's anti-spam bill. He also has collaborated on bills proposed in Congress and in four other states. The new law, which will take effect in 90 days, makes it a violation for spammers to send e-mail messages that hide their point of origin, mask the transmission path, or contain misleading information in the message's subject line. Spam dispatches, named after the often-derided Hormel meat product, usually contain such false information in their "headers," or address fields, and promote get-rich-quick schemes, miracle health cures or explicit pornographic material. The new law bans both sending e-mail with such deceptive header information from computers located in Washington, and sending such e-mail to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident. It puts the burden on the sender to find out whether the intended recipient lives in Washington. Individuals who receive such e-mail could collect up to $500 per violation; Internet service providers, the companies that provide computer users access to the Internet, could receive up to $1,000. Assistant State Attorney General Paula Selis on Wednesday said the state will aggressively enforce the new law, but she declined to elaborate, saying her office generally doesn't like to disclose its enforcement strategies. She called the new law "better than nothing." With the support of the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers (WAISP), Selis had drafted a more vigorous law that would have flatly banned sending spam -- unless there was an existing relationship between the sender and the recipient, or the recipient had requested or consented to receive it. But powerful interests, including the Direct Marketing Association and Microsoft, testified against that version of the bill. Microsoft lobbyist Deborah Brunton said her company is "very concerned about unsolicited junk e-mail, but we also are a company that used legitimate e-mail practices to reach out to our customers." She said Microsoft was concerned that the bill's original language was ambiguous, and might have prohibited the company from developing new markets. Meanwhile, in his column posted on the Microsoft Web site Wednesday, Chairman Bill Gates skewered spam, writing in part: "Wasting somebody else's time strikes me as the height of rudeness. We have only so many hours, and none to waste. That's what makes electronic junk mail and e-mail hoaxes so maddening." The new law also calls for creation of a three-member task force, consisting of two members of the House Energy and Utilities Committee and a person appointed by Locke, to identify technical, legal and cost issues related to spam, and to evaluate whether existing laws are sufficient to cope with it. It sets a Nov. 15 deadline for completion of the report. Meantime, WAISP executive director Gary Gardner said local Internet providers would review the new law when they gather April 17 at Bell Harbor Conference Center on the Seattle waterfront. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now $500 per violation; that sounds like good news to me :) I'd get several thousand dollars per day, and I could quit asking for money from readers of this Digest. Heck, I would not have to even send any extortion letters to Bill Gates demanding a monthly stipend, etc. ... but so often, laws like the one passed in Washington turn out to be useless; symbolic and well-intended but useless. How do you suppose recipients of the spam are going to collect in any sort of timely and painless way? The spammers won't pay voluntarily, I'm sure. And a spammer could easily argue that he had no way of knowing that the address xxx@isp.com delivered mail to someone in Washington State if the ISP happened to be located in Oregon or Idaho for example. It makes about as much sense as the people who put threats against spammers in .signature files saying the spammer will be charged for reading the mail, etc. Rarely are those collectible short of hiring an attorney in the location of the spammer and suing. And as a general rule, one simply does not sue someone out of state for less than a couple thousand dollars, by the time the papers are filed and the attorney gets his cut, etc. But maybe it will work. I was glad to hear the news about Cyber Promotions' latest litigation. If people keep bashing Spamford long enough, he may eventually give up entirely and find some legitimate employment, maybe washing dishes in a restaurant somewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:00:08 PST From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc.no@spam.yahoo.com Subject: BellSouth Billboards Ring up Wrong Area Code {The Charlotte Observer} Published Friday, March 27, 1998 BellSouth billboards ring up wrong area code By DAVID BORAKS and FOON RHEE Staff Writers Just what BellSouth needs -- more befuddlement about the Carolinas' new area codes. Two dozen new BellSouth billboards in the Charlotte and Gastonia areas tell residents: ``Your new area code is 828.'' Sorry, wrong number. Charlotte and Gastonia remain in the 704 area code. It's Western North Carolina -- including Asheville, Hickory, Morganton and Shelby -- that switched to the 828 area code Sunday. BellSouth plans to remove the wrong signs in the next few days. ``We will be taking them down as quickly as we can,'' spokesman Clifton Metcalf said Thursday. `` ... We don't want to confuse folks.'' The billboards, which went up this week, are supposed to be among about 50 along roads in the mountains. The signs in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are supposed to say: ``Western North Carolina's new area code is 828.'' ``I don't know where the mistake was made,'' Metcalf said. ``It could be anywhere in the process. At this point, we're not worrying about where the mistake happened. We're focusing on getting the right information out there.'' Besides the billboards, BellSouth is also using newspaper ads, radio announcements and phone-bill inserts to make sure residents know of the new area codes. The Carolinas added two other area codes Sunday, for nine total: northeastern North Carolina split from the 919 area code to become 252, and eastern South Carolina left 803 to become 843. Most calls dialed with the old area codes will still get through until fall. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:24:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Adds Flexibility For Troubled Cellular Firms By Aaron Pressman WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission has offered a more flexible bailout plan for financially strapped companies that won valuable wireless licenses in 1996. Eighty-seven firms bid $10.2 billion in the 1996 C-block auction of licenses to offer the advanced cellular service known as personal communications services, or PCS. But the high prices bid and a dearth of investors put a financial squeeze on the leading companies that won licenses. The key change in the FCC's plan, revised from a proposal issued last September, allowed companies to choose different bailout options for different geographical regions. Under last year's plan, for example, a company could not keep licenses for one city and give back licenses for other cities. The revised plan, now available to all the troubled PCS firms, is similar to a reorganization plan the FCC endorsed Monday for bankrupt Pocket Communications, the second leading bidder at the auction. That plan allowed the sale of licenses for Chicago and Dallas to a group including Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson and Siemens Telecom Networks, with other licenses returned to the government. "For the original Pocket license holders, who are now out of the wireless business, bankruptcy has been a disaster," FCC Chairman William Kennard said. "I hope that today's order will help others avoid the same experience." NextWave Telecom, Pocket and General Wireless Inc. -- the top three bidders -- together account for more than $7 billion in winning licenses. Pocket and General filed for bankruptcy last year. Like last year's plan, the FCC's revised plan allows companies to choose from among four options. A company may resume paying for its licenses over ten years, pay for all licenses immediately, return the licenses to the government without penalty, or keep licenses in one spectrum band and return those for another. Nextwave said it was reviewing the revised plan. "Nextwave will review the full range of restructuring alternatives that the FCC is making available and will make its decision by the date prescribed by the FCC," the company said in a statement. The FCC said all bidders must decide which options to choose within 60 days. The agency also postponed indefinitely conducting a new auction to sell any spectrum licenses returned under the bailout plan. Commissioner Susan Ness, the only member of the five-member panel who considered last September's plan, voted against the new plan's revisions, calling them "excessive and potentially counterproductive". "Judges and legislators, lawyers and economists all speak to the need to promote competition, not competitors," Ness said in a statement. "Today's decision crosses the lines to favor specific competitors over others." Ness maintains the bailout plan offers too much help to troubled auction winners, which she says is not fair to auction winners which paid for their licenses under the original terms of the sale. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Harvard Offers Legal Cybercourse Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:15:31 -0500 Excerpt from CBS Marketwatch ... Harvard offers legal cybercourse The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is offering a free, online course open to the public. Professor William W. Fisher will moderate "Intellectual Property in Cyberspace." Fisher, an expert in copyright, patent, and trademark law, says the course will "address the controversial and volatile question of who should own what on the Internet." Students will present and refine their own views on these issues by participating online in a variety of virtual seminars and threaded conferences. The course is the second in a series to be offered by the Berkman Center, and has been made possible by a donation from the Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr LLP. More information is available at property.berkmancenter.org. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:43:34 -0600 From: Alan Bunch Subject: Wireless Phones in a Parking Lot Check out the Qualcomm webpage. They make a device that is a pop in a box. It has POTS port on one side and a cellular attenna on the other. What this does is lets a regular phone work on a cellular "circuit". You would need cellular service that could only dial 911 but that shouldn't be hard. Also the devices that you see here in the US are emergency call boxes on the roadside. They seem to be solar powered and only call the police I think. In a submission to telecom-digest was written: > I need to provide a solution to a college that is putting emergency > telephones into thier various parking lots around the campus. There > is lots of power outlets, but running telephone lines to the > locations is going to be very expensive. Does anyone know of a > wireless solution that would accept inputs from an emergency > telephone? I know there are site-wide wireless telephone solution > but they all seem to require a proprietary handset. I figure this way > they can use it both for emergency phone and phones for the mtce. > people at the same time. > Dale Laluk, C.E.T. > Lunar Communication Services > P.O. Box 569, Hudson's Hope, B.C. V0C 1V0 > 250-783-5365 or 1-800-227-5912 voice > 250-783-5790 fax > lunarcom@netbistro.com internet Alan Bunch President alabun@spyderinc.com Spyder Enterprises Inc. http://www.spyderinc.com Small sigs save bandwidth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:07:37 -0800 From: Lisa Watson Organization: Nestle USA Subject: Recent Victim in Phone Scam I found this website by doing a search under USP&C -- it seems (after reading all of this) that I too have been hit by a scam. I'm in the process of contacting the company whose service I supposedly used. However, I never used this "DAMI Teleservices"; they are hitting me for $10.97 which reads "Tes Svc Plan-10 min debit card". How can I fight this? Will copying the FTC, BBB and/or Attorney General help? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Lisa in Dallas, TX ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #48 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 2 01:37:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA11962; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:37:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:37:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804020637.BAA11962@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #49 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Apr 98 01:37:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Getting Nickel-and-Dimed (Monty Solomon) FCC Issues "Vanity Decision" in Toll-Free (Judith Oppenheimer) Senator Leahy to Offer Bill Targeting Telco Pay Phone Windfalls (N. Allen) Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5-Billion on Data Networking (oldbear@arctos.com) LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges (Bruce Wilson) Bell Atlantic Providence Switch Failure (Tony Pelliccio) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:34:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Getting Nickel-and-Dimed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/30/031l-033098-idx.html Getting Nickel-and-Dimed Technology Is About Change -- or Lack Thereof -- at Pay Phones By Brian Krebs Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 30, 1998; Page F18 You may well have had the experience: You've got two quarters and you need to make a call from a pay phone. So, in go both quarters. You've paid the new, higher rate of 35 cents. And you've overpaid by 15 cents because pay phones don't give change. With a majority of the country's 2.1 million pay phones now charging 35 cents for a local call, or soon to do so, that withheld change adds up, giving companies a huge windfall. Let's assume that 75 percent of the phones out there are charging 35 cents -- no one knows what the precise figure is. If just one person a day overpays 15 cents at each of the phones, companies would get more than $230,000 extra a day, or about $7 million a month. The windfall is an indirect result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which gave phone companies freedom from many price regulations in the name of increased competition. The law has come under fire lately from numerous consumer groups that claim it has strengthened phone companies at the expense of the consumer. Last October, when the FCC decided to "deregulate and detariff" local pay phone rates across the country, some industry analysts argued that it might result in rate competition, with the price of a local call varying from one phone to the next. Less than three months later, however, pay phone rates have generally risen in lockstep in local regions. Gene Kimmelman, executive director of the Consumers Union, said the FCC got it all wrong. "There is no competition at the consumer level," he said. "When was the last time you saw two pay phones at one location that were each owned by a different company or that charged a different price? It just doesn't happen." The only competition, said Kimmelman, is for who pays the most commission to the establishment where the phone is installed. And this competition helps drives up the price of a local call. If one pay phone company raises its rates in order to pay higher commissions, competitors are under pressure to do so as well, or risk losing contracts to put pay phones in restaurants, malls, airports and convenience stores. Prior to deregulation, most states maintained a cap on the price of a local pay phone call. But industry officials have for years argued that the common 25-cent price was not enough to cover the costs of providing basic pay phone service and maintenance. They point out too that in the past decade, pay phone companies have lost revenues to cellular phones, calling cards and various collect-call campaigns. Nevertheless, for consumers in Vermont, the price increase to 35 cents from 10 cents means that a local call today costs more than three times what they used to pay. Adding insult to injury, say Vermont natives like Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, is that for those who don't have exact change, the 15 cents they may forfeit is more than the call itself cost just two months ago. Leahy and the Consumer's Union, which publishes Consumer Report, have drafted legislation that seeks to force pay phone providers to return this extra amount to the consumer, either by mandating the installation of change-making devices or through a credit to the customer's phone bill. The plan would exclude all pay phones that still charge 25 cents or less. The legislation is expected to be marked up in committee this week. A third option would entail a direct donation by phone companies to the Universal Access Fund, a $2.25 billion federal fund designed to ensure that all households can have affordable local phone service. But a law mandating change-making devices could backfire on the consumer, says Consumer's Union's Kimmelman, who said the legislation should instead focus on making the FCC revisit the issue of deregulation. "We'd like to avoid a situation in which the pay phone companies increase the price of a call, then turn around and say, 'The federal government made me do it,' " said Kimmelman. Vincent Sandusky, president of the American Public Communications Council, a trade group for smaller pay phone providers, said retrofitting pay phones with change-making devices could be prohibitively costly. Sandusky cited a letter to the Georgia Public Service Commission from BellSouth President James Hawkins, putting the cost of such an endeavor at upward of $100 million for the country as a whole. John Everett, director of public products at Bell Atlantic Corp., which provides local phone service in the Washington area, pointed out that pay phones have never given change -- and most people don't expect them to. He added that while none of Bell Atlantic's 400,000 pay phones from the District to Maine have notices stating they do not give change, the company is considering giving them such signs. So far the Washington metropolitan area has had no organized consumer revolt of the type that is taking place in Vermont. Faced with such indifference, it's conceivable that phone companies may choose to raise the price of a pay phone call to 50 cents. "My sense is that this won't happen," said Ed Baron, an aide to Sen. Leahy, adding that he is confident consumers will take up the issue. "We think one way or the other, the general public will get tired of being nickle-and-dimed by the phone companies, and we'll start to see significant consumer unrest." Brian Krebs's e-mail address is krebsb@washpost.com Principles of Technorealism Here are some of the tenets of technorealism as they appear at http://www.technorealism.org 1. Technologies are not neutral. 2. The Internet is revolutionary but not Utopian. 3. Government has an important role to play on the electronic frontier. 4. Information is not knowledge. 5. Wiring the schools will not save them. 6. Information wants to be protected. 7. The public owns the airways; the public should benefit from their use. 8. Understanding technology should be an essential component of global citizenship. ----------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a couple complaints about the complaint given: First, there are locations where competing pay phones are nearby. When I had the two COCOTS put in at the Skokie Bus Station I did not have the three Ameritech payphones at the other end of the waiting area removed. *They* charge 35 cents per call. *Mine* charge 25 cents per call. I get most of the business these days as a result. Is my situation unique? Second, there are a lot of coin operated devices which do not give change, and there are other services which do not provide change either. When was the last time you rode a local bus in your commun- ity and had the driver offer to make change? All the busses around here plainly say by the door 'exact change only', and when the fare is $1.80 which includes a transfer, you can bet a lot of folks just put two one dollar bills in the money box. Payphones at least will speak up and say 'you have 15 cents credit toward overtime' or words to that effect so you can get your money's worth. Payphones also have a lot of people who walk away owing money at the end of call as well, so I think it washes out. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:50:13 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: FCC Issues "Vanity Decision" in Toll-Free Washington, DC April 1, 1998 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) True to form, the FCC has issued its latest dysfunctional Order in CC Docket No. 95-155, FCC ADOPTS DECISION ON ASSIGNMENT OF TOLL FREE VANITY NUMBERS March 31, 1998, Report No. CC-98-7. 800 subscribers with 888 set-asides get replication. But in 877, assigning vanity numbers on a first-come, first-served basis ensures fair allocation of numbers by granting no class of subscribers a preference. Despite overwhelming evidence presented to the FCC that large RespOrgs make up a class of subscribers with a preference over small RespOrgs; and that all RespOrgs make up a class of subscribers with preference over non-RespOrg subscribers, this Order insists that its current system constitutes first-come, first-serve, and determines that "vanity numbers in the new 877 toll free code and future toll free codes shall be assigned on this first-come, first-serve basis as each code is deployed." The Commission asserts repeatedly that assigning vanity numbers in 877 and future toll free codes on a first-come, first-serve basis will ensure fair allocation of numbers by granting no class of subscribers a preference... In addition a first-come, first-served process ensures an orderly allocation of toll free numbers because it avoids disputes among subscribers over who is entitled to a particular number. However, subscribers of certain vanity numbers in the 800 toll free code are granted the right of first refusal for a limited amount of corresponding vanity numbers in the 888 code that were set aside pending the Commission's decision. This, the Commission said, will also further its goals of promoting the efficient, fair and orderly allocation of toll free numbers. Explaining this discrepancy, the Commission says that although 888 numbers are now in widespread use, [it is] concerned that consumers are still adjusting to the environment of multiple toll free codes. As a result, the problems of customer confusion, misdialing, and new toll free subscribers benefiting from the marketing efforts of 800 subscribers with corresponding vanity numbers are likely to be most serious in the case of the first post-800 toll free code. Which, of course, won't be a problem in 877. Right. The Commission declined to impose a fee in connection with the right of first refusal for the set aside 888 numbers. Set aside 888 vanity numbers will be available for assignment ninety days after 877 is deployed. If the subscriber to the corresponding 800 vanity number refrains from subscribing to the set aside 888 number, the 888 number will be made available on a first-come, first-serve basis. It is unclear if the Order specifies if, or how, subscribers with 888 numbers in set-aside are to be notified by their RespOrgs of this ninety day window. The Order notes 877 is scheduled to be introduced on April 5, 1998. And finally, attached to the Order is a rudimentary Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, giving the Commission a carefully constructed appearance of compliance with the Small Business Administration. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, it seems to me the FCC reached a reasonable compromise on this. Granted, the introduction of 888 was bound to lead to some confusion, and the FCC was right in having the set-asides for major 800 customers to avoid the hassles we discussed here many times. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise if every single toll-free code being introduced from now into the future had a large quantity of numbers set-aside on the premise that someone, somewhere was likely to abuse the original 800 subscriber's rights, or that the public would be confused, then we never would gain any ground on stopping the proliferation of toll-free codes. Each one would open up already half full due to set-asides. Had the FCC granted your wish with 877, would you want them to do it again when 866 comes around, probably in the next year or two at the pace we are going now? If anything, maybe they could allow the holds in place on certain 888 numbers to remain another year or so, in the event some people still cannot understand the difference between it and 800, but it has to end sometime. IMO, 888 'looks enough like' 800 that some confusion might still be present -- people thinking the 888 was a typographical error and that 800 was intended -- but 877 simply looks and feels totally different. The rate of dialing errors will be much less, and the 'mischief factor' is going to be much less also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:14:54 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Organization: 8 Silver Ave., Toronto ON M6R 1X8, Canada Subject: Senator Leahy to Offer Bill Targeting Telco Pay Phone Windfalls Here is a press release from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, from his web site at http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/news.htm Media can contact David Carle of Sen. Leahy's office at 202-224-3693. Press Release March 30, 1998 Leahy To Offer Bill Targeting Telcos Pay Phone Windfalls Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., later this week will introduce a bill targeting windfalls collected by pay phone firms whose telephones do not offer change to their customers. Public phones rarely, if ever, offer change, and there are 2,100,000 pay phones nationwide, gathering millions of dollars each month for the industry in unearned windfalls. The problem has worsened since the Federal Communications Commission's recent deregulation of pay phone charges, when many firms promptly raised their rates -- typically, from a quarter to 35 cents -- without offering change to customers stuck with the wrong coins. The U.S. Supreme Court today (March 30) let stand a court decision upholding that FCC preemption of states' authority to influence public phone rates. Following is a summary of "The Consumer Pay Phone Protection Act of 1998," sponsored by Leahy: CASH CHANGE OR CREDIT TO STATES: The bill requires that pay phone companies which charge more than 25 cents for local phone calls provide either cash change or other alternatives to consumers, or credits to states equal to the value of the unpaid change, for use by states for telecommunications activities that promote the public interest, such as safety, health, emergency services, education, or in nursing homes. PROMOTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The bill directs that these sums not provided to consumers be conveyed to the states where the pay phones are located. Such funds would go to support public interest pay phones in remote locations where they might be needed for emergency calls, in underserved areas, or in areas where they would promote public safety. The funds could be used to improve phone access in poorly served areas. ONE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION: The bill directs the FCC, within one year of the bill's enactment, to issue proposed rules that apply to pay phone providers that charge more than 25 cents for local pay phone calls. Companies would have to provide for cash change or automatically credit the appropriate public service agency in the respective states to account for instances in which change is not provided at the pay phone. NO INCREASES IN CHARGES OR DECREASE IN SERVICE: The bill requires that the FCC ensure that pay phone providers do not pass any costs of compliance with this bill on to consumers and that pay phone providers in no way reduce or limit service based on this anti-windfall requirement. CONSUMER NOTICE: The bill requires that small stickers or other notice be posted on pay phones for the purpose of advising consumers when cash change will not be provided. RECONSIDER RULES: The bill directs the FCC to reconsider its rules under which the FCC removed authority from states to regulate the charge for local calls made over pay phones. The FCC would reexamine the need for states to have greater decision making roles where local competition between pay phone providers is not present. (end of press release) Note from NDA: As a Canadian who sometimes visits the U.S., I think this bill is a step in the right direction, although I think that pay phone rates should be regulated they way they traditionally were. Market forces don't work terribly well when it comes to pay phone pricing. Using a stored-valued card like Bell Canada's Quickchange card is a good way to avoid having to carry around a lot of charge for local phone calls from pay phones, although not all Bell Canada payphones can read the Quickchange card. Senator Leahy's web site is worth visiting. He has some interesting Internet material there as well. Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would suggest that Senator Leahy should also make it a federal offense to walk away from a payphone owing money, or for otherwise defrauding the telco which has the payphone. He might also want to require public transit agencies to give change or credit the overages to some type of fund. Newspaper vending boxes on sidewalks do not give change either, Senator, and there are people around who have to put in five or ten cents extra to get their paper. At least the telco allows the overage to be used on the call being made when overtime begins. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:13:39 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5-billion on Data Networking The following story excerpted from {The Wall Street Journal} for Tuesday, March 31, 1998: Bell Atlantic to Spend $1.5 Billion To Prepare Its Network for Data by Stephanie N. Mehta, Staff Reporter NEW YORK -- Bell Atlantic Corp., racing to prepare its local telephone network for increasingly demanding data applications, said it plans to spend $1.5 billion over five years on upgrading and expanding its existing systems. The Baby Bell said it awarded equipment, software and hardware contracts to five vendors. "I would characterize this as an aggressive extension of the Bell Atlantic network," said Lawrence T. Babbio, president and chief executive officer of the Bell's Network Group. Bell Atlantic, like other carriers, is facing growing data- transmission demands as services such as the Internet and telecommuting become commonplace. "The market was moving in this direction," Mr. Babbio said. "The demand for high-speed access from businesses and residents is out there." The company said it awarded Lucent Technologies Inc. a $500 million, five-year contract to provide network-management software, high-speed optical-networking technology and multiplexing technology, which boosts capacity by splitting strands of fiber into multiple channels of light. Ciena Corp. also will provide multiplexing equipment, Bell Atlantic said. Bell Atlantic awarded a $500 million, five-year contract to Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. The unit of Fujitsu Ltd. said it will provide the Baby Bell with transmission equipment. Tellabs Inc. and DSC Communications Corp. won contracts to provide so-called cross-connect systems that help to route voice and data traffic through different types of network equipment. Terms of those contracts weren't disclosed. Bell Atlantic told analysts in February that it planned to boost its capital spending on data networks. "Everyone in the industry is going to have to do this, so it is no big surprise," said Tim Horan, a telecommunications analyst with BancAmerica Robertson Stephens. The Bell's package of contracts doesn't cover a proposed Internet backbone that the company is seeking permission from federal regulators to build. In New York Stock Exchange composite trading Monday, Bell Atlantic rose 43.75 cents to $101.4375. Bell Atlantic and the other Bell operating companies also received a boost Monday from a Supreme Court decision that upheld federal deregulation of the pay-telephone industry, one of the Bells' lines of business. Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:55:59 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges For the benefit of those who want to take preventive action with respect to unauthorized charges for non-communications services, etc., which may appear on their local exchange carrier (LEC) bills, here is a list of the billing and collection clearinghouses (which aggregate those charges on behalf of their clients, such as "Psychic Help," and send them on to the LECs), with voice and fax numbers: Billing & Collection Clearinghouse Voice Fax ESBI (Enhanced Service Billing, Inc.) 888-302-3724 210-949-7100 Integretel 800-736-7500 408-362-2791 ITA (international Telemedia Assoc.) 800-866-8889 770-937-0422 NBE (National Billing Exchange) 800-879-4297 407-894-6224 OAN Specialized Products/Services 800-947-5084 818-678-4679 Telecom Operator Svcs. d/b/a "USP&C" 800-449-1058 816-965-2630 Vartec 800-583-0670 888-230-7617 VR$ 900 Billing Services 800-736-7500 408-362-2874 ZPDI (Zero Plus Dialing, Inc.) 888-511-0734 210-949-7464 For the record, fax a signed request to each and every one to have your number(s) added to its blocking database immediately on receipt of your letter and keep both the original and the fax transmission report showing the date and time sent. (The fax numbers above were obtained by voice call requests for a fax number to which a list of numbers to go into its blocking database could be sent, except for ESBI, the fax number for which was obtained from its web site, and USP&C, the fax number for which was obtained from the Iowa Attorney General's office, Consumer Protection Division.) Integretel handles customer service for VR$, but VR$ has its own fax number. In the case of businesses with multiple incoming lines, include the phone number assigned to EACH/EVERY line, NOT just the main listed number, to obtain complete blocking. Call your LEC business office (or look closely at your monthly phone bill) if you don't know what all of those numbers are. Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course do not forget to tell your own local telco as well as your long distance carrier to add your number(s) to their 'billed number screening' database. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Bell Atlantic Providence Switch Failure Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:12:53 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool On March 31, 1998 Bell Atlantic suffered a complete outage of their switching system in Providence, RI. The outage lasted at least fifteen minutes and affected 90,000 telephone lines. Bell Atlantic is at a complete loss to explain what happened, except that both the main DMS-100 and a backup DMS switch both failed. They say they cannot guarantee that it's not going to happen again. Now for the editorializing: Since Bell Atlantic has taken over what was once Nynex, predicitions of service with an attitude have come true. The bimbo that was on the 6 O'Clock news looked like a deer in the headlights. I will concede that Nynex wasn't the most technically adept RBOC, but we ***NEVER*** suffered an outage of this scale in my memory. It makes me so happy I've decided to switch our business lines to Brooks/Worldcom and taken my cellphone off Bell Atlantic Mobile over to CellularOne (A division of SNET, soon to be SWB). To conclude - bwaaaaahaaahaaaahaaa. Bye-bye Bell Titanic. The City of Providence has decided that they may abandon BA for all it's needs too! Tony ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #49 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 2 09:24:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA26281; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:24:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:24:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804021424.JAA26281@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #50 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Apr 98 09:24:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 50 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FBI Asks FCC to Resolve Wiretapping Dispute (Monty Solomon) Re: New LM-IMS-NANPA Planning Letters! (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: NYS (Bell Atlantic) to Get 'Per Activation' 3-way Calling (Reed) Re: Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. (Nils Andersson) Re: Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Browse the Web Undercover (Derek Balling) Re: Browse the Web Undercover (Andrew Green) Re: Browse the Web Undercover (Lee Winson) Re: Telephone Acoustic Interface (Jack Daniel) Re: Telephone Acoustic Interface (Peter Corlett) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:21:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FBI Asks FCC to Resolve Wiretapping Dispute Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: FBI asks FCC to resolve wiretapping dispute ******* WASHINGTON, March 27 (Reuters) - The FBI on Friday asked the Federal Communications Commission to resolve its bitter dispute with the telephone industry over changes to the U.S. phone system needed to allow future wiretapping. Telephone equipment makers and carriers have so far resisted implementing the FBI's interpretation of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) fearing they would have to spend billions of dollars to alter their systems. In a 67-page filing with the FCC, the FBI and Department of Justice contended that the industry's proposed standard to meet their wiretapping needs was "seriously deficient." Unless the industry is forced to change its standard, "information that is critical to public safety and law enforcement will be lost," the agencies wrote. Phone companies have said they plan to make their own filing with the FCC, asking the agency to reject the FBI's demands and extend a looming October deadline contained in the 1994 law. A senior Justice Department official said the agency would oppose the industry's move to extend the October deadline for meeting all requirements of the law. [...] ------------------------ WASHINGTON (AP) - Law enforcement officials asked the Federal Communications Commission on Friday to resolve a dispute with the telecommunications industry over preserving their ability to tap telephone lines in the digital age. In a petition filed with the FCC, the Justice Department and FBI asked the regulatory agency to come up with a solution to the long-standing dispute by Sept. 28. The cellular phone industry welcomed the petition. "It will be helpful to the industry, which had been trapped," said Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association spokesman Jeff Nelson, referring to the stalemate with law enforcement over a plan. The FCC, Nelson said, will weigh all points of view before taking any action and "we think that's a good place to be." The United States Telephone Association, which represents local phone companies, had no immediate comment. A 1994 law requires telecommunications companies to make digital wiretapping technology available to law enforcers. But after three years of negotiations, the telecommunications industry and the government have not been able to agree on a plan for doing that. One point of contention is what technical changes telecommunications companies must make to ensure that phones and other communications can be tapped legally as digital technology replaces the analog technology that has long been in use. Another is the cost of doing this and how much the government and the industry would pay. The telecommunications industry and privacy groups have accused law enforcers of trying to broaden their wiretapping powers, something the Justice Department and the FBI have denied. [...] ---------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ---------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor FBI ... my heart really bleeds for them, doesn't yours? Not content to use the tremendous power they have already to snoop into the lives of Americans and wreak havoc at the snap of their fingers -- the constitution be damned and all that -- they want still more facilities available to them? Somehow they will survive, I am sure. Maybe they could just get a law passed requiring everyone to have a pad of those 'message for you' forms by each telephone. Whenever a call was placed or recieved, each party would be required to use one of those forms to summarize who called, their phone number and what the call was about. Then once a month forward all those forms to the local FBI office for review. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:43:54 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: New LM-IMS-NANPA Planning Letters! LM-IMS-NANPA's website is updated as of Tuesday 31-Mar-1998, with TWO new Planning Letters! http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters.html The two new ones are in Adobe-Acrobat .pdf format, and are: PL-NANP-117, Overlay of NPA 303 Colorado, with NPA 720 http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/pl-nanp-117.pdf Local ten-digit permissive dialing began on 1-Feb-1998 Mandatory ten-digit local dialing to begin on 1-June-1998, along with the beginning of new overlaid 720-NXX c/o codes. Test Number (to become available on 18-Apr-1998): 720-200-0000 PL-NANP-118, Split of NPA 702 Nevada, with NPA 775 http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/pl-nanp-118.pdf Clark County (includes Las Vegas) will retain NPA 702 Everything else will split to NPA 775 The three Nevada*Bell wire/ratecenters and their NXX's in Nye County in the southern (Pahrump) NV LATA (#721): Pahrump, Beatty, Lathrop Wells - will change to NPA 775. Two Nevada*Bell wire/ratecenters and their NXX's in Clark County (also in the southern/Pahrump NV LATA, #721): Indian Springs and Sandy Valley - will remain in NPA 702. All of Sprint/Centel and Moapa Valley Telco in Clark County, and in the southern/Pahrump LATA #721 will remain in NPA 702. Bordering towns in Nevada, such as Spirit Mountain NV (served out of the Phoenix AZ LATA #666) and Mesquite NV (served out of the Utah LATA #660), which are in Clark County... will retain NPA 702. Everything else in Nevada, whether in Nevada*Bell's northern/Reno NV LATA #720, or served from bordering states, such as: Jarbidge, Jackpot, Owyhee, Mountain City (all in LATA 652 southern ID) and Wendover (NV) served from Utah LATA #660. There are numerous rate/wirecenters in Nevada which are 'independent', as well as growing wireless, and even CLECs. An interesting sidenote... The five Nevada*Bell (Pacific*Telesis) wire/ratecenter/NXXs in LATA #721 (southern/Pahrump NV) have LATA-access tandem-homings, intra-LATA toll (via traditional LEC), and intra-LATA operator service tandem homings via _NOT_ any Nevada/Pacific*Bell tandem, but rather via an _INDEPENDENT_, Sprint-Centel! (all three tandem functions under: LSVGNVXB41T, 702+055+ (the northern/Reno LATA #720 tandem is: RENONV1274T, 702+020+, soon to be 775+020+) There _ARE_ a few areas in the US where a _BELL_ end-office has toll/ tandem homings (at least for intra-LATA, LATA-access, and LATA-opr) on an _independent_ telco! Unfortunately, the Pac/Nevada*Bell supplied info for the PL for Nevada might have some conflicting info as to which 702-NXX codes and rate/wirecenters remain in NPA 702 and which change over to NPA 775. Permissive dialing of either NPA for the splitting off region will begin on 12-December-1998; Mandatory use of NPA 775 for the splitting off region will start on 15-May-1999. The test number (which is supposed to become active on 14-Nov-1998) is 775-550-0775, which is typical of Pac/Nevada*Bell test number formats. It probably will come from the Nevada*Bell tandem in Reno. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Re: NYS (Bell Atlantic) to Get 'Per Activation' 3-way Calling Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:47:11 -0700 Here in US West area, per-call 3-way was turned on without the users being told/warned. Result was users being billed $.75 whenever they hit the switchhook too fast to hangup on first call and make another (normal) call. Need to wait on-hook approx. 2 seconds. Otherwise same/similar rates and options. (Issue got big play on local news after the fact as complaints poured in...) Danny Burstein wrote: > From the "notice of proposed tariff", found in the {NY Daily News}, > 25-Mar-1998. > Notice is hereby .... effective April 12, 1998... > Customers have the option to subscribe (on a monthly > flate rate), ... or use Usage Threeway Calling on a > per-activation basis. > > Residence Business > Per activation: $0.75 $0.75 > Monthly cap: $6.00 $7.50 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:58:09 -0500 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. In article , Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > Anyone who wants to argue that we should proceed with wireless > overlays must first address the question of how you can reconcile the > conflict with Local Number Portability issues. You are of course right as far as it goes. Those who advocate wireless overlays would of course have to concede that you cannot have number portability between the two types of service, although you could have portability within each. Very few if any people have even that portability now, and I am not holding my breath. I can just imagine me calling PBMS and asking them for a subscription using my old LACellular number. They would either a) not understand me at all or b) laugh at the notion. As to landline, I am not aware of any real alternative to GTE where I live, with ANY numbering scheme. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wireless Overlays are *Impossible* in the U.S. From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:37:10 GMT In article , Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM says... > However, a frequent reader of this forum pointed something out to me > in private e-mail: wireless overlays are not only contrary to current > policy, but also impossible on a technical level! > The reason is quite simple: one of the underpinnings of Local Number > Portability is that you can change your service to *ANY* carrier while > keeping your existing number. That specifically *INCLUDES* wireless > carriers. Thus, you can force all existing wireless customers to change > to the new wireless overlay, but they can then turn around, order a POTS > line, and then convert the POTS number to the wireless service under LNP. That's an unnecessarily literalistic interpretation. Sure, you can't have a wireless-only overlay and PROHIBIT wireless users from being in the original NPA. But so what? How many wireless users will want to be in the original? Most cell phones are on a pay-for-airtime basis, so the owners don't want to be that easy to reach. Those who do, can. Cell phone carriers and other radio common carriers can get their own prefix codes now, so they can get new codes in the overlay while being allowed use of the other NPA for those who really care about it. They don't like being changed because reprogramming a cell phone takes some effort, but of course overlays prevent splits so it's sort of a wash. Nore to the point, I have a better (IMnsHO) idea. The overlay should be used for bulk number users, including wireless users who don't request otherwise. So Direct Inward Dialing (DID) blocks will go into the overlay, but if somebody *wants* a block of non-overlay numbers, there's a premium price. If you get a phone book listing, you can have a non-overlay -- this leaves out pagers, most cell phones, DID blocks, fax server blocks, etc. Again, if anyone WANTS to opt out of the overlay, there's a small price -- even a quarter a number a month will be enough to move most bulk-number users, other than those who have an interest in staying. This scheme is nondiscriminatory, since unlisted (and second) residence numbers also will need to pay the extra quarter to stay out of the overlay, while wireless users get the same choice. And of course the remaining codes need to be administered carefully, along with number portability so CLECs can have non-overlay numbers too. (Number conservation goes along with this, including splitting prefix codes within a rate center among carriers by block-of-1000.) 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: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Browse the Web Undercover Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:25:48 -0600 Organization: SpeedChoice Monty Solomon wrote: > If you work in a large office or corporation and connect to the Web > via a T1 line, you're probably protected by a proxy server -- like > Netscape Proxy Server or Microsoft Proxy Server -- or a firewall. But > if you aren't covered by that kind of protection, you should check out > The Anonymizer, a public proxy server at www.anonymizer.com. > The Anonymizer serves as a surrogate for you, retrieving as many Web > pages as you wish from as many sites as you wish. It displays the > pages you request in a frame, so you know when it's working. If you're > using Anonymizer's free service, your browser window will display ads > and there is a 30-second delay. Another version does the job without > ads or delays for a quarterly fee of $15. Paying for Anonymizer's > service, or using a free personal proxy server like Lucent's > Personalized Web Assistant (see "Fight Back!" page 136) are the best > ways to browse incognito all the time. > In addition to keeping your e-mail address from nosy servers, > Anonymizer's proxy service keeps your ISP's name private and the URL > of the page you visit before you've clicked on the site. Anonymizer > also maintains your anonymity during FTP sessions and disables Java. It always amazes me how people are worried about a few disjointed sites putting together their web-travel habits, yet they're perfectly willing to place a LOT of trust in people they don't know and tell them ALL their travel habits. Some things to keep in mind with "Anonymizer" services: 1.) They see EVERYTHING you do. If you're reading your hotmail through an anonymizer, the people who run the anonymizer could very well have logged every single bit of it, because it had to go to them FIRST to proxy it back to you. 2.) They can develop MUCH better detailed travel pattern summaries than the average disjointed information most sites can. They know that "this IP address" went from My Yahoo, to My Excite, to C|Net, and wherever. How much would it be worth to an advertiser to be able to know the last 10 sites you visited before getting to where you are now, and offer you a product based on that info? Just some things to think about ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is sort of odd that he tells us not to trust various web sites we know nothing about with information which is stored on our browser then at that same time tells us it is perfectly okay to pass all our traffic -- allowing a much better idea of who/what we are and are interested in -- to be handed over to some other unfamiliar site for processing. I still opt for what should be the easiest solution of all. Put some anonymous and incorrect details in your browser ID, do not use the mail programs offered by the browser, and on a regular basis keep the cookie and history files cleaned out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Browse the Web Undercover Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:56:02 -0600 > Regarding the mail program in Netscape, since I > do not use Netscape to get mail, I just left that blank all the time > but you could put totally dummy information there also. While I have my doubts about a few of the statements made in that article, it might be more revealing in terms of learning who can lift what out of the Netscape program if you were to set up a free account somewhere such as Hotmail, and plug that address into your Netscape Identity fields instead. Check the account periodically for signs of activity to see who's been sniffing your machine, if any. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. email: acg@datalogics.com 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Browse the Web Undercover Date: 1 Apr 1998 00:08:19 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Your browser is selling you out. Without your knowledge, it's offering > up personal information to marketers who are only too happy to bombard > you with product offers, ads, and golden opportunities to make money Was there a web site that returned whatever info your browser was sending to it, so you see what was being released? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Jack Daniel Subject: Re: Telephone Acoustic Interface Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:26:20 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: JackDaniel@RFSolutions.com Miguel Garcia wrote: > I'm developing a system which must communicate via telephone DTMF. As > many people know there must be a licence to connect anything directly > to the phone line in many countries such as mine. > Because of that I decided to use an acoustic interface. It uses one > microphone to receive voice, DTMF and to detect 400Hz signal (for call > progress status indication), and a second microphone is used for ring > detection (+- 3KHz in my telephone). A speaker is used to send > pre-recorded voice and DTMF signals from the system. > My problem is: > Although the ring detection (3KHz from the second microphone) and > 400Hz detection (from the first microphone) signals are both filtered > by two 4th order band pass filter (tuned on their adequate > frequencies) there are many frequencies in the natural environment > that cross (or are equal to) those tuned frequencies. > That way an interrupt request (to answer a call) can be falsely > generated into the system by the ring detection subsystem. > I think it will be worst in what concerns to the 400Hz detection > because, for example, if the system wants to dial a number, it takes > up the receiver with a controlled electromagnetic arm and it must to > recognise a dialing tone trough the first microphone of +- 400Hz. > The probability of confusion between this telephone sound and another > sound with the same frequency that may be present at the same > environment, at the same time, and captured by the microphone is high, > so the system may interpret it as dialing tone when it isn't present. > Of course it may misunderstand other telephone tones like ringing > tone, engaged tone ... > My question is: > Have you any idea about any resolution of this problem? Miguel, You have a classic tone decoder design problem. It sounds like you have a suitable filter for the 400 Hz decoder, but be as frequency selective as practical. The remaining domains you have to work with are amplitude and duration (time). In general terms, the decoder will respond faster as the input level increases to the ppoint of limiting or clipping. If your circuit allows the local voice to appear at the decoders input, place a notch filter in the outbound voice path. The loss of 400 Hz will not normally be significant in voice communications. This will reduce local 'talk-off' of the decoder. Next, integrate the output of the decoder detector so that it takes a long tone period to operte the output of the decoder. This is usually nothing more than a capacitor and resistor "RC" charge delay circuit. (Add a reverse diode if you want fast reset between tones) The nonger you can make the detection period, the less voice talk-off you will have because voice seldom holds a single frequency for very long. Obviously, if the decoder recieves a false tomne that is of the correct frequency and duration, it will not know the difference. That is why most designers use two simultanious non-harmonic tones for reliable tone burst signalling. Voice will not normaly operate a simultaneous two tone decoder. Thats how DTMF also works. There are at least two other additional possibilities: a. Add a syllabilic rate detector, which only has an output when the input frequency is NOT a balanced waveform like a tone. Its a sophisticated 'voice' modulation decoder. Use the output of the syllibilic rate detector to INHIBIT the 400 Hz decoders output. Therefore, the 400 Hz won't react if voice is also present. b. Use other forms of output inhibition based on other timing or level conditions inherent in the system that you have not described here. I hope this helps you. I'm sure more experienced (or inexperienced and over educated) people will have comments, arguements, spelling corrections and gramatical corrections. Jack Daniel ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Telephone Acoustic Interface Date: 01 Apr 1998 11:07:05 +0100 Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Miguel Garcia wrote: > I'm developing a system which must communicate via telephone DTMF. As > many people know there must be a licence to connect anything directly to > the phone line in many countries such as mine. My sympathies if this is really the case. I recall that you can connect items to the phone network provided it is CE marked, so if you can get your device CE tested and marked, this is probably the way to go. This is a result of EU legislation, and for example allows UK users who are generally overcharged for ISDN equipment to import cheap kit from Germany instead. [...] > I think it will be worst in what concerns to the 400Hz detection because, > for example, if the system wants to dial a number, it takes up the > receiver with a controlled electromagnetic arm and it must to recognise a > dialing tone trough the first microphone of +- 400Hz. The probability of > confusion between this telephone sound and another sound with the same > frequency that may be present at the same environment, at the same time, > and captured by the microphone is high, so the system may interpret it as > dialing tone when it isn't present. I'd suggest using a notch filter as well to eliminate 400Hz, and you can use the result of that to decide what the ambient noise is like. > Of course it may misunderstand other telephone tones like ringing tone, > engaged tone ... More filters... > My question is: > Have you any idea about any resolution of this problem? If you need lots of filters, I'd recommend the use of a cheap DSP rather than lots of discrete components. DSPs are designed for this sort of application, and can perform filtering very easily. In addition, it can generate and decode the DTMF, and may well be able to replace the microcontroller (if any) you were using, dependent on its workload. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #50 *****************************