TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:48:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 323

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    UN Panel Fails to Agree on How to Govern Internet (Irwin Arieff)
    UN Panel Presents Four Options for Internet (Aoife White)
    Competition Slashes Cost of Broadband Service (Deborah Yao)
    Who Really Controls Internet? (Andrew Kantor)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Joseph)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Jim Rusling)
    Re: Non-Bell ESS? (John McHarry)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Arthur Kamlet)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Charles Cryderman)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones (J Haynes)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Irwin Arieff <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: UN Panel Fails to Agree on How to Govern Internet
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:27:46 -0500


UN panel fails to agree on how to govern Internet
By Irwin Arieff

A group set up by the United Nations to come up with a global plan for
managing the Internet said on Thursday that it has been unable to
agree on who should do the job or how it should be done.

The Working Group on Internet Governance instead came up with four
rival models for overseeing the Web and sorting out technical and
public policy questions.

In a report to be submitted to the World Summit on the Information
Society in Tunis in November, the group also proposed creation of a
permanent forum to carry on the debate.

To understand the problem, "you must recognize that the Internet was
set up largely by academicians for limited use, but has grown beyond
anyone's wildest expectations, with nearly one billion users today,"
Markus Kummer, the working group's executive coordinator, said in a
telephone interview.

At issue for the world body is who runs the Internet and how it can
better serve the world.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry,
government and private interest groups to try to narrow the "digital
divide" and ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to
the Internet.

The Internet is now loosely managed by various groups. The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), for example,
manages the domain name system and is under the control of the
U.S. government.

Helping set technical standards are the International
Telecommunication Union, an international organization; the
private-sector-led Internet Engineering Task Force, and the
academia-oriented W3C.

Among the governance options put forward by the group were a
continuation of the current system, creation of a world body to
address public policy issues stemming from the work of ICANN, and
creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues.

The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy
issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination.

The group also recommended a coordinated global effort to combat spam,
or junk e-mails, which they agreed now comprises about 90 percent of
all email, and urged that law enforcement authorities respect the
right to freedom of expression when they crack down on
Internet-related crimes.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: Aoife White <ap@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: UN Panel Presents Four Internet Options
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:29:18 -0500


By AOIFE WHITE, AP Business Writer

A U.N. panel created to recommend how the Internet should be run in
the future has failed to reach consensus but did agree that no single
country should dominate.

The United States stated two weeks ago that it intended to maintain
control over the computers that serve as the Internet's principal
traffic cops.

In a report released Thursday, the U.N. panel outlined four possible
options for the future of Internet governance for world leaders to
consider at a November "Information Society" summit.

One option would largely keep the current system intact, with a
U.S.-based non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, continuing to handle basic policies over
Internet addresses.

At the other end, ICANN would be revamped and new international
agencies formed under the auspices of the United Nations.

"In the end it will be up to governments, if at all, to decide if
there will be any change," said Markus Kummer, executive director of
the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance, which issued the
report.

The 40 members of the panel hailed from around the world and included
representatives from business, academia and government.

World leaders who convened in December 2003 for the U.N. World Summit
on the Information Society in Geneva couldn't agree on a structure for
Internet governance.

Some countries were satisfied with the current arrangement, while
others, particularly developing ones, wanted to wrest control from
ICANN and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the
United Nations.

Leaders ducked the issue and directed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan to convene the working group to come up with a proposal for the
second and final phase of the summit, in Tunisia in November.

Though the group could not agree on a single model, it does recommend
the creation of a new global forum for governments, industry and
others to discuss key issues such as spam and cybercrime -- areas not
currently handled by ICANN.

The panel recommended a larger international role for "governance
arrangements," Kummer said, and participants felt no one country
should dominate.

He stressed the sentiment dates back to the Geneva summit and was not
meant as an attack on the United States or a direct response to the
U.S.  Department of Commerce statement two weeks ago that it intends
to keep ultimate authority for authorizing changes to the list of
Internet suffixes, such as ".com."

The United States historically has played that role because it funded
much of the Internet's early development.

"The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the U.S. has played
a beneficial role," Kummer said.

ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey said the report confirmed his
organization's role.

"If the Internet was a postal system, what we ensure is that the
addresses on the letters work," he said. "We don't think we're a
regulator. We think we're a technical co-ordinator."

Twomey said ICANN had a narrow technical coordination role for a
particular layer of the Internet -- specifically domain names and the
numeric Internet Protocol addresses used to identify specific
computers.

But ICANN critics believe the organization has drifted beyond its
technical mandate. They have cited ICANN's growing budget and its
involvement in creating procedures for resolving trademark dispute as
examples.

Paul Kane, chairman of a Brussels-based coalition of domain name
administrators called the Council of European and National Top-Level
Domain Registries, said the report told ICANN diplomatically that it
needed to narrow its focus.

"Keeping things focused means not having a massive budget, having a
well-defined scope and a well-defined mission," Kane said. "They have
neither. They're not following their original remit."

Others have expressed concerns that ICANN remains too close to the
U.S.  government, which gave ICANN its authority in 1998 but retains
veto power.

Developing countries have been frustrated that Western countries that
got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses
required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations to share
a limited supply.

And some countries want faster approval of domain names in non-English
characters - China even threatened a few years ago to split the
Internet in two and set up its own naming system for Chinese.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. Read Associated Press stories with no login nor
registration requirements at: 
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

------------------------------

From: Deborah Yao <ap@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Competition Slashing Costs of Broadband
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:30:28 -0500


By DEBORAH YAO, AP Business Writer

Telephone and cable TV companies are slashing broadband prices and
boosting connection speeds as the two monopoly-prone industries
prepare to lock horns on multiple fronts.

Comcast Corp. fired the latest shot in the battle this week by
announcing plans to boost the speed of its entry-level cable broadband
service to 6 megabits per second -- as much as four times faster than a
typical DSL connection over a phone line.

That move follows a series of promotions which have lowered
introductory rates for a high-speed Internet line to between $15 and
$30 a month, down from the typical $30 and $45 a month.

The prize is far larger than signing up more high-speed Internet
users, analysts say. Companies are trying to lock in customers who may
soon be offered the convenience of buying phone, cable, Internet and
wireless services from a single provider out of convenience.

Two of the big regional phone companies, Verizon Communications
Inc. and SBC Communications Inc., are spending billions to replace
their copper lines with fiber-optic cables that provide enough
capacity to deliver hundreds of channels of cable TV starting later
this year.

The cable companies, meanwhile, are rolling out phone service over
their cable lines and exploring options to add cell phones to their
mix.

In advance of this head-to-head competition, Verizon, SBC and Qwest
Communications International Inc. recently cut their introductory
rates for DSL to $15 or $20 per month, and the cable carriers Comcast,
Time Warner Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. sweetened their
introductory prices to $20 to $30 per month.

The phone companies are especially "willing to take a hit on margins
 ... if they can keep their landline users," said Mike Paxton, a senior
analyst at In-Stat, a technology research firm in Scottsdale, Ariz.

But by limiting the price cuts to new customers, the companies may
risk angering their current subscribers.

"It's frustrating that they're not giving their loyal customers the
same kind of deal," said Kerry Smith, an attorney from South
Philadelphia who subscribes to Comcast for cable, but pays Verizon for
Internet and phone service.

The cable and phone companies are betting that existing customers will
find it too inconvenient to switch. That's why cable operators --
which are ahead of phone companies in signing up broadband Internet
users -- don't feel as pressured to slash prices as deeply, Paxton
said.

Even in markets where DSL prices have dropped, cable has not been hurt
badly, Paxton said.

"It's frankly a pain in the butt to switch," he said.

Cable broadband typically costs more than DSL, but cable operators
have emphasized speed, arguing that their rates are competitive since
the connections are often faster. Phone companies, however, have been
closing the speed gap between cable and DSL.

Comcast's speedier connections will be available later this month in
Pennsylvania, New England, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and
Washington, D.C. For most of its other markets, the new speeds will be
available by the end of summer. In May, Qwest unveiled a premium DSL
service with a top download speed of 5 Mbps.

"Speed very much matters. Reliability matters," said Dave Watson,
executive vice president of cable operations at Comcast.

The phone companies appear to believe that customers are more aware of
price than speed.

"A lot of people can't tell the difference" in download speed,
spokeswoman Bobbi Henson said.

SBC has been the most aggressive in cutting prices. The company has
cut its DSL price at least three times in less than two years -- from
$26.95 in early 2004 to $19.95 last November and $14.95 in June, said
spokeswoman April Borlinghaus.

But the Internet price war is just a precursor of a larger battle to
come between the industries.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: Andrew Kantor <usa-today@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Who Really Controls Internet?
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:33:38 -0500


The recent U.S. decision to control the Internet is no big deal.

Last week the Bush Administration announced that it was backing out of
a pledge it had made, saying the U.S. government would retain control
over the Internet.

You may have heard that no one controls the Internet. That's sort of
true for a couple of reasons. Most importantly, the Internet is a
"network of networks," meaning that although it has its own backbone
and connections, it also comprises lots of other networks --
educational, corporate, government, and so on. Take the Internet
backbone away and those other networks would probably work just fine.

Second, the Internet isn't really a thing any more than "government"
is a thing. It's just a whole lot of computers that all speak the same
language that happen to be connected.

But, just as government has evolved a massive bureaucracy to support
it, so too has the Internet. In the Net's case, the center of that
'bureaucracy' is a set of 13 root nameservers. These are computers
that manage the flow of bits around the world. (Or "across the world,"
if you're not a believer in the "round-Earth" theory.)

Those nameservers are controlled by an organization known as
ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). And ICANN
is controlled by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

ICANN is the organization that decides, among other things, what
top-level domains are allowed -- a top-level domain being .com, .org,
 .uk, etc. The nameservers it controls maintain those, so when you type
in " http://www.usatoday.com ", your computer's message ("Send me that Web
page") goes to the right place.

Yes, it's more complicated than that. But I covered the complexities
of the workings of the Net in an earlier column.

What's important is that _he who controls the root nameservers
controls the traffic on the Internet._ And right now that's the
government of the U.S. of A. (Cue patriotic music.)

But ICANN is a private organization, and it's supervision by the DoC
is based on a memorandum of understanding that was written in 1997,
when "the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize
the management of the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that
increases competition and facilitates international participation in
its management."

ICANN has a worldwide membership -- in fact, its president and CEO is
an Aussie named Paul Twomey. The U.S. government was supposed to give
up control in 2006, when it would be up to the world at large to
decide how ICANN would fit into the scheme of things.

Most likely it would then be run by the International
Telecommunications Union, a body that's sorta kinda part of the U.N.,
but has actually been around since 1865 in one form or another. Among
other things, it established the ground rules for linking telegraph
systems in the late 1800s.

But that's neither here nor there.

That's because this is the land of doing as you please, and President
Bush decided that he pleased not to give up control of the Net.

Obviously Bush didn't say it that way.  As usual these days, Bush
claims it was done in the name of "security" -- the same reason, for
example, the FBI needs access to your library records.

"The United States Government intends to preserve the security and
stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," went a
statement from Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. "The United States
will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or
modifications to the authoritative root zone file.")

Translation: We don't trust other people to run the Internet, and
since we made it in the first place, tough noogies.

Luckily for us, since 9-11 we've enjoyed the goodwill of the rest of
the world. Most people and most governments trust us and like us, so
this probably won't be a big deal. Everyone knows that America has the
whole world's best interests at heart.

Of course, there are a few grumblegutses out there who, for reasons I
don't understand (because the mass media doesn't really tell us) don't
completely trust us.

What they say is that this unilateral decision by Bush could split the
Internet -- it could literally cause the rest of the world to set up
its own routing system because, like us, they want to have control
over their own data infrastructure.

That would mean that representatives of U.S. Internet, the European
Internet, and potentially the Asian, African, and South American
internets would have to reach some sort of connectivity agreement to
allow the bits to flow.

It might also allow any country to 'lock out' data from any other
country. Not that we would do that, what with the U.S. being so
committed to a free and open society, but it could happen in places
that don't value freedom as much as we do.

Of course, this is all speculative. The Internet is, in fact,
fractured already -- that "network of networks" thing. So connecting
new networks to the existing one is fairly simple, especially if that
new network was originally part of the Internet in the first place.

In other words, if the Internet splits because of the president's
decision, connecting the two (or three, or more) remaining parts will
be fairly straightforward, at least from a technical viewpoint.

After all, new devices and technologies using the "language" of the
Net -- Internet Protocol, or IP - are popping up all the time. Voice
over IP, video over IP, IP-enabled phones and PDAs and what have
you. Connecting two or more entire Internets will be a piece of cake.

The issues, instead, will be political ones, and how could that be
bad?

              ============================

Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all
who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for
PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His
column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.

Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

To read USA Today news stories with no login nor registration
requirements go to http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/othernews.html

------------------------------

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:20:32 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:53:59 +0000, Alan Burkitt-Gray, London SE3, UK
<burkittgray@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Wireless credit card terminals are now fairly common outside France,
> in other parts of Europe -- in trains, for ticket payment, and in
> restaurants.  Odd that they're not apparently in the US yet.

They indeed do exist in the US.

------------------------------

From: Jim Rusling <usenet@rusling.org>
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You
Organization: Retired
Reply-To: usenet@rusling.org
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:15:38 -0500


Gary Novosielski <gpn@suespammers.org> wrote:

> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:

>> Apparently you would not be able to use your credit or debit card in a
>> restaurant then, since they require you give them the card to swipe at
>> a location out of your sight. 

> Having recently spent a few weeks in France, I noticed a practice that
> would solve this problem completely.  It seems now to be the standard
> method of operation at all restaurants from the trendy "gastronomique"
> places (with prices astronomique) to the neighborhood "steak/frit"
> joints.

> When paying with a credit card, the server brings a small wireless
> terminal directly to the table.  It looks just like a compact adding
> machine, with a paper roll on the back, but with a card slot on the
> front, where you insert your card. If it's a debit card, you key your
> PIN on the keypad.  The receipts are printed right from the same
> device, and the card never leaves your possession.

> If devices like this were used in the states, you could presumably
> also use the keypad to add a tip amount to the check.  (In France,
> where service is included, tips are a rarity, and when offered at all
> are invariably in cash.)

I would worry about the security of the wireless connection.

Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

------------------------------

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS?
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:42:21 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:44:48 +0000, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> In article <telecom24.321.5@telecom-digest.org>, John Stahl
> <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote about Re: Non-Bell ESS? on Date: 12 Jul
>> 2005  12:11:16 -0700:

>>> I'm very sure it was a non Western Electric switch.  It was made in
>>> Plano Tx (forgot the maker's name) and it was used for local calls....

>>> ... The basic pattern was the same-an unexplained deluge of
>>> electronic messages shutting down a computer built by DSC
>>> Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas ...

>> To the best of my memory, DSC, whose name was mentioned in the archive
>> you added (above), never made any type of an ESS switch, which the
>> original essage questioned a non-Bell switch. DSC, now owned by
>> Alcatel (France), made a whole line of CPE including multi-line
>> systems and even some FO based equipment. 

DSC stood originally for Digital Switch Corporation, and they did make
a switch. I know they were fairly big in the large PBX area, and
possibly in toll tandems, but I don't recall whether they made a local
switch. I would be somewhat surprised if they never did.

I think they achieved their greatest fame for making STPs, where they
became the dominant supplier for some time.

------------------------------

From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use?
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:04:10 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com


In article <telecom24.322.3@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> He said:

>> They are still in use, yes. Their purpose is different from 800
>> numbers, as it gave the called party the ability to restrict
>> incoming calls to selected areas of his choosing, areas as small as
>> a single exchange.  That's never been available with 800 numbers.

800 numbers require multiple dips into SCPs, at least one to identify
the carrier and another to help route and bill the call.

During the routing stage, the SCP can inquire about where to route the
call, or not to route, based on all sorts of "intelligent" criteria,
such as time of day, day of week, and originating NPA or exchange or
full number.  So if you want an, 800 number can be routed based on the
full 10 digit ANI. The days of mileage based zones were interesting,
but as more and more intelligence gets built into 800 numbers, just
distant memories. 


Art Kamlet     ArtKamlet @ AOL.com   Columbus OH    K2PZH

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use?
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:59:04 -0400
From: Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com>


Dear Lisa posted:

> Someone on the railroad newsgroup said Enterprise numbers are still
> in use. (Enterprise numbers were manually reached through the
> operator and served as toll-free lines prior to 800 direct dialed
> service. The operator had a table in which she converted the
> Enterprise number to an actual telephone number and placed the call,
> billing the recipient.)

> I don't think he's correct.

Then she quoted:

> They are still in use, yes. Their purpose is different from 800
> numbers, as it gave the called party the ability to restrict incoming
> calls to selected areas of his choosing, areas as small as a single
> exchange.  That's never been available with 800 numbers.

What I wish to correct him on is the "selected areas of his choosing"
commit. That is not correct with 800 (toll free) numbers they can be
assigned to any type of customer (800 number owner/user) needs. They
can be set to work in a central office, many offices. Limit calls from
one state from coming in or set it so only calls from a single state
can come in. If the customer wants to be able to receive a call from,
let us say for example all of southeast Michigan but not the western
suburbs of Detroit it can be set up that way. Now this isn't a perfect
solution due to maybe a few parts of those western suburbs may be
served by a end off in Detroit and the customer wants more then
anything to get those Detroit calls they will either have to deal with
it or exclude the western Detroit calls. Each code (800-NXX) only has
to do what the customer wants. Even let us say the customer does want
the western Detroit suburb calls but would rather have them go to a
different service center, that as well can be accomplished. Now at one
time the great originator of toll free service (AT&T) didn't want to
do it and so there was a time that these types of toll free routing
wasn't available but to say never is just plan wrong.

Chip Cryderman

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use?
Date: 14 Jul 2005 13:20:18 -0700


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He is wrong, but so are
> you. 'Enterprise' numbers (they were called 'Zenith' in many places;
> 'Enterprise' was the Bell System word; I think 'Zenith' was the word
> used by GTE and some others) are now pretty much grandfathered to
> existing subscribers (basically long time customers since the
> 1970's?) who wanted to keep them. I do not think you can order new
> Enterprise/Zenith service, but it is there for people who always had
> it and wanted to keep it. But if you give it up, (or move, or
> otherwise change your service) that's it. Don't ask for it back.

Thanks for your response.

I've seen a variety of designations for this service depending on the
city, Bell used Zenith as well as "WX" and "UX", all had a line
underneath "ask Operator for ..."

Until around the late 1990s, several large cities in the NE US still
had many listings for Enterprise numbers.  Most were defunct; I
suspect somehow they escaped the normal directory purge process.
Directories since then do not have Enterprise numbers, even for
businesses that still actively had them.  (I don't want to call such a
business to test it since they have to pay for the call.)

I would be surprised if anyone would still have one today because,
AFAIK, it would cost so much more than 800 service.  AFAIK, every
Enterprise call was billed as a collect call.  Way back when, collect
calls cost the same as regular calls, and short distance calls were
relatively cheap.  That is, someone from the suburb calling a city
business would generate a charge of say 20c.  But now the surcharge
for collect calls is quite steep.  I doubt AT&T would give a discount
because it is an operator handled service which they would want to
duly charge for.  Plus, because it is so obscure, they use up an
operator's and supervisor's time to figure out the rare request and
dig out the dusty translation table.  I'm sure AT&T wouldn't want
that.

Also, most callers today wouldn't know what it was compared to an 800
number.  Lastly, I don't think basic level 800 or
remote-call-forwarded service costs very much these days.

Do you know of specific businesses that still are using them?  (You
don't have to give their actual name.)  Were they still listed in the
current Chicago directory?

> Anyway Lisa, tell your newsgroup person about
> this won't you please?   Thanks.   PAT]

Your text copied over to the misc.transport.rail.americas newsgroup.
Thanks again.

[public replies please]

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:30:33 GMT


In article <telecom24.321.10@telecom-digest.org>,
Eric Bohlman  <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote:

> Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org> wrote in news:telecom24.312.11@telecom-
> digest.org:

>> neither at the time nor in retrospect can I find any justification for
>> the DAA other than protecting AT&T's revenue stream.

> But the DAA requirement was dropped as a result of FCC action in the
> late 1970s (the enactment of the Part 68 regulations).  It had nothing
> to do with the breakup.

And the DAA, while no doubt helping to protect the revenue stream, was
arguably necessary until a process was developed for certifying
devices to be attached to the network.  Although it was hypocritical
to require it for the switched network and not for private lines; but
then private lines are relatively rare and can be marked as such.  I
can imagine fly-by-night modem makers turning out products that would
put excessive levels into the line (causing crosstalk), unbalanced to
ground (causing hum, noise, and crosstalk), leaking power line AC to
the phone line (causing shocks to the telephone repair people), having
DC leakage on the line (causing false trouble reports and tripping
ringing falsely), and on and on.  Some devices might not have these
troubles to begin with but would develop them when there were
lightning strikes around telephone lines.

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have 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 fifty 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.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #323
******************************