Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA16106; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:25:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608191525.LAA16106@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #420 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Aug 96 11:25:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 420 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Hackers Deface Justice Web Page (TELECOM Digest Editor) Trouble Using 888 Toll Free Services (Bruce Bergman) DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) (Greg Monti) Inmarsat Prices Tumble (Van Hefner) Microwave Rural Phone System? (Dave Perrussel) Does New Area Codes Mean New Caller Cost? (Lou Jahn) Will Full Number Portability Occur? (Lou Jahn) TCP Parameters For GSM Data? (Tom Worthington) 1+ Dialing and How it's Billed (John Cropper) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:51:28 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Hackers Deface Justice Web Page Friday overnight into Saturday morning, it appears someone was busy at their keyboard ... ... the web page maintained by the United States Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov) was looted and ransacked by hacker(s) of identity yet unknown who replaced the page installed by the government with one of their own which, to put it mildly, as charitably as possible, was most unflattering to Janet Reno and President Clinton. The official web site of the Department of Justice, which was taken off line when the webmaster discovered it on Saturday morning had been renamed to "United States Department of Injustice". A swastika was at the top next to the government agency name. The text of the page was written over a background of grey swastikas. Large letters declared that 'this page is in violation of the Communications Decency Act' ... The page included a picture of Adolf Hitler, who on the web page is referred to as the attorney general. Another picture is of a topless Jennifer Aniston, one of the stars of NBC's 'Friends' show. Numerous sexually explicit images were on the page, and interspersed with the lewd and sometimes crude images of Ms. Reno, President Clinton and others engaged in rather preposterous (funny, though!) sexual acts while Hitler watches and leers at them was text criticizing the Communications Decency Act, signed in February but in suspense at the present time pending litigation regards its constitutionality. A defiant Adolf Hitler (US Attorney General) is pictured saying 'anyone who does not agree with me on everything I say and do will be sent to jail. Anyone who is different in any way must be jailed or murdered.' President Clinton looks on approvingly. The text continues, "it is hard to trick millions of people into allowing us to take away their Bill of Rights and basic freedoms but if Clinton is elected for another term we should be able to complete the job by the end of this century ... " Then there were links to 'other pages of interest', each marked with a little swastika or a little picture of Hitler where one would click to go to that other page. The other pages, equally rude, had a variety of sexually explicit pictures and/or cartoons. All of the links were very unflattering to Clinton, Republican nominee Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan. In one, Clinton is identified as President Ben Dover and he is sexually assaulting someone identified as John Q. Public while Bob Dole waits patiently in line for his turn. A sheet of paper marked 'Bill of Rights' flies out the window in the breeze. In another link, Hitler is said to be Pat Buchanan's campaign advisor, and Hitler explains why his candidate is better than Clinton: "At least he doesn't lie about his intentions; you always know right where you stand with Buchanan. There is no putting him in office and finding out the bad news later. Look at how Clinton lied to all the gay people and tricked them into supporting him. Are they in for a surprise later on!" -------------------------- Justice Department officials were alerted Saturday morning to the hacking which had been done. The site was taken off line immediatly and restoration is underway now to put the 'official' page back up. It is expected that http://www.usdoj.gov will be back on line by Monday. Washington bureaucrats who had an opportunity to view the 'Department of Injustice' page before it was removed were outraged. Justice Department spokesman Joe Krovisky said Saturday afternoon it was not clear at this point what statutes had been violated 'by whoever defaced our web page'. Janet Reno did not comment or respond. I suppose President Clinton could get on television and say that they will catch whoever did it and charge them with defacing government propaganda ... ooops, I mean government *property*. -------------------------------------- Election '96 ... one of the nastiest yet. And although you did not ask my opinion, I'll give it anyway: I think the government simply has no conception of how difficult it would be to police or censor the net, even if they *really tried*. There are an awful lot of fourteen year old kids out there with more knowledge of the most obscure workings of the net than all the government agents combined. The government will eventually get down to business and try to put the net offline so to speak, reserving its use mostly for the government itself and large corporations. They'll fail, but it should be fun watching them try. PAT ------------------------------ From: bbergman@westworld.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: Trouble Using 888 Toll Free Services Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 06:22:08 GMT What are the legal time requirements for Customer Owned Pay Telephone providers to program access to 888 Toll-free services? 888 was announced well over a year ago, and most providers should have changed their programming by now. However, *every* time I have tried to access our small business' 888 line from a COPT in the greater Los Angeles area, it has met with failure. And every time I contact the various COPT vendors, I get no answers or satisfaction. And even when I go through the local or Long Distance Provider operators, I've only been successful once out of about a dozen tries. And this has never been a problem with either 800 numbers, or when using Telco owned paystations Can anybody provide information on the legal requirements for allowing connection, or is the only recourse to start a California PUC complaint file on every carrier? I have been reading through comp.dcom.telecom for several months now, and am amazed that I'm the only one with this problem! Of course, being an electrician with 13 years of telco experience both in installing steppers and digital switchrooms, and as an OSP splicer, I've never had insurmountable problems. ( Though one *must* be discreet when using Butt Sets, there's almost no problem that a Dracon TS-32 can't solve :-P ) P.S.: Anyone else noticed how quiet switchrooms are today? Bruce L. Bergman Woodland Hills, CA. bbergman@westworld.com Electrician, HVAC-R Mechanic, Telephone Tech, And More..... WARNING: SPAM FREE ZONE. Send *NO* Junk E-mail. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be persecuted. ISP's will be notified. Other steps taken as necessary. You have been warned. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 888 is merely an extension of 800, and for all intents and purposes is considered to be the same thing. For example, 800-555-1212 gives out the information for both 800/888. If the one group of numbers is made available then the other should be also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 15:30:01 -0400 From: cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti) Subject: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) Of late, there have been several complaints posted about the dialing patterns required by Southwestern Bell and by GTE in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The gist of the complaints havs been that 1+10 digit dialing should be allowed for all calls from all phones in the NANP, even if the call is local. The concept is: even if the caller mistakenly dials the call using the "toll procedure" of 1+10, they should be pleasantly surprised when they are not billed for this call because it is local. I wholeheartedly agree with this position. Like Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Dallas-Forth Worth does not allow 1+10 dialing on cross-area-code local calls. Subscribers are forced to dial exactly ten digits, no more, no less. Although I disagree with this, I can see how it came about. Dallas and Forth Worth began being required to dial 10 digits for local calls between them about four years ago. Prior to that, local calls which crossed the area code boundary between the two metro areas were dialed with just seven digits. There are two levels of local calling area that can be purchased from telephone comapnies in the DFW area: ordinary service and Extended Metro Service (EMS). The EMS level of service lets you call (and be called by) virtually every number in the Dallas Metro area and in the Fort Worth metro area without toll charges. The local calling area from downtown Forth Worth and the local calling area from downtown Dallas -- from non-EMS phones -- touch each other but do not overlap. Obviously most businesses which deal with their customers by phone have EMS service, which offers almost 100% overlap. For tens of years, businesses advertised in newspapers and on the sides of their vans, their seven-digit local number (preceded by "Dallas" or Fort Worth") and their seven-digit EMS number (preceded by the word "Metro"). It was assumed by callers that the Dallas number was in 214 (which never had to be dialed if you were calling from Dallas), the FW number was in 817 (which never had to be dialed if calling from Forth Worth). The metro number was perceived NOT to have an area code because it could be dialed from everywhere with seven digits. Of course, each EMS number did have an underlying area code, they just weren't published except in the fine print of exchange lists in the front of the phone book. Then came mandatory ten-digit dialing. All of a sudden, businesses had to identify which area code their Metro number was in. Some people, as soon as they saw ten digits printed anywhere, assumed that that call was toll. So they refused to do business with that company and called somebody else. A great hue and cry was raised by the consumers (who thought half of the EMS numbers had been made into toll calls) and by the business (who were losing customers). The solution was to do everything possible, even if it was technically stupid, to train the consumers and businesses that cross-area-code calls that were local in the old seven-digit era, were still local in the ten-digit era. In 1993 editions of the Dallas phone directory, the businesses who had EMS numbers in the 817 area stood out dramatically. Their metro numbers were printed in boldface capitals preceded by asterisks: *** TOLL FREE 817 NXX-XXXX The same was true of Dallas EMS numbers printed in the Fort Worth directory: *** TOLL FREE 214 NXX-XXXX The phone numbers and the "TOLL FREE" designations were actually printed in larger type than the name of the business itself. The phone companies were required to do one more thing to *absolutely assure* the little blue-haired ladies that local calls between area codes were still local: They disallowed the 1+ on toll calls. This way, your Aunt Tilly in Richardson could not possibly -- not even accidentally -- dial a call to a Fort Worth EMS number as 1-817-NXX-XXXX and get through. She would instead receive the assuring recorded message that the call was local and must be dialed without a '1'. Sure, this is an inconvenience for laptop users who plug into hotel room lines and have to try two or three times to get through. Sure this is an inconvenience for people who move and have to figure out how to reprogram their memory telephones. Who is the phone system supposed to serve anyway? Those big, rich businesses? Those newfangled internet users (who run up over $100 per month). Or those lowest common denominator subscribers who make no long distance calls and get a bill for $20 a month? If you are the Texas PUC, subject to appointment by elected officials, how would you answer that question? And don't worry. The culture that got us to this point is about to strike again. When I was in Dallas last week, I saw a story on the 10 PM news about a public hearing on splitting the 817 area code. *All* of the commenters who were shown by the TV station were age 70 and over. (Everyone else was at work.) One of them said (paraphrased here), "Old people don't like change. Do what you need to do, but don't change anything that old people have to dial." I swear. Why do Miami and Fort Lauderdale now have the same dialing procedure as Dallas and Forth Worth? Well, what percentage of the Mia-FtL population consists of persons over 70? Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@interramp.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 08:50:10 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Inmarsat Prices Tumble Bethesda, MD, August 17, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- COMSAT Personal Communications (CPC) took an important step recently toward offering global satellite communications to consumers by placing the world's first personal satellite communications (PSC) call using its PLANET 1(SM) service. COMSAT officials in Malaysia placed the call with the NEC- and COMSAT-developed PLANET 1(TM) phone through the Inmarsat-3 satellite operating over the Indian Ocean region. The call was received by CPC vice president and general manager, Christopher J. Leber, while on business travel in Germany. "Today, COMSAT celebrated an historic milestone as PLANET 1 opened a new era for global communications -- the world's first personal satellite communications call," said Leber. "The first phone call demonstrated the potential uses for our PSC technology -- it was successful because of a team effort with NEC, Inmarsat, Telecom Malaysia, and COMSAT RSI, which built and installed the ground network equipment for PLANET 1 service. COMSAT's PLANET 1 service will enable individuals who travel internationally and work or live outside cellular coverage to be in touch and conduct business by phone, fax, or E-mail." The PLANET 1 service coverage area will initially include: Africa, the Middle East, Russia, Western Australia and Asia, including Japan, China and India. COMSAT expects to offer PLANET 1 service in this initial coverage area by fourth quarter 1996. Four additional Inmarsat-3 satellites are scheduled to be launched by October 1997, including one operational spare. Worldwide PLANET 1 service is expected to be available at that time. "With the completion of the world's first PLANET 1 personal satellite communications call, COMSAT has secured a place in telecommunications history," said Warren Grace, director general of Inmarsat. "As one of Inmarsat's leading service providers, COMSAT is committed to bringing satellite communications solutions to market -- PLANET 1 is an excellent case in point." The world's first PSC call originated from the shores of the South China Sea, near Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. From there, the call was picked up by a "spot beam" emanating from the satellite which is in geostationary orbit over the Indian Ocean. The call was then transmitted to COMSAT's Indian Ocean region ground station and routed to Chris Leber via the public switched telephone network. PLANET 1 phones will retail for about $3,000, with an all-inclusive (fully terminated) call charge of approximately $3 per minute (pending FCC approval). The PLANET 1 system will integrate cellular and mobile satellite technologies to offer seamless global, personal voice and data communications. COMSAT's PLANET 1 phone will incorporate the functionality of a standard business phone with fax and data capabilities. It will also use subscriber identity module (SIM) cards for security and flexibility. SIM cards will allow companies to create a "terminal pool" where multiple employees, each with their own SIM card and billing account, can share a limited number of terminals. Additionally, future PLANET 1 services will include voice/fax mail notification, call-in absence indicator, E-mail and Internet access, and short messaging service. A proven leader and innovator with more than 30 years of experience in global satellite communications, COMSAT, via Inmarsat, is the first service provider to introduce a complete PSC solution to the global marketplace. COMSAT Personal Communications is a business unit of COMSAT's International Communications (CIC) division. CPC is responsible for personal satellite communications services including PLANET 1 and future hand-held personal satellite communications services planned to be offered through the ICO Global Communications satellite network. Certain statements in this press release related to PLANET 1 service are forward-looking and are based on management's current expectations, which may be affected by subsequent events (e.g., unexpected delays in completion of product testing, delivery of terminals or satellite launch schedules). PLANET 1 is a trademark and servicemark of COMSAT Corporation. COMSAT and the COMSAT logo are registered trademarks or COMSAT Corporation. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ From: diamond@viper.nauticom.net (Dave Perrussel) Subject: Microwave Rural Phone System? Date: 18 Aug 96 02:47:15 GMT I work for a company that has a field station in the middle of the New Mexico desert. We currently have phone service there via two ways: The older service uses a "open wire carrier" that transmits phone data over two bare copper wires for over 30 miles from the nearest town's telco building (the local telco is GTE). We can successfully transmit data at 9,600 baud and sometimes up to 14,400 baud. The problem with this is that the technology is vacuum tube based and the local GTE people will no longer support it. Our new system uses a VHF or UHF low power signal to a phone system on a nearby mountain (30 miles away). This works well for voice, but only does data at 1,200 baud -- if its a good day weatherwise. This is not good enough for what we want to do. We need a higher bandwidth but the local telco will not (or cannot) give us a system with higher bandwidth. Is there a commercially available product that will do a high bandwidth (say 14,400 baud or 28,800 baud) using point to point microwave that is reasonabally priced? Thanks in advance. Please E-mail me at diamond@interserf.net Dave ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 96 00:38:32 EDT From: Lou Jahn <71233.2444@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Does New Area Codes Mean New Caller Cost? Can anyone help with a minor pricing point? As the new area codes are introduced, are callers forced to pay higher costs for things such as Directory Assistance? Right now in NJ - when I dial 411, I can get any telephone number in the 609 Area code - my cost after six free calls is 20 cents per 411 call. If 609 is split into two area codes will I need to call long Distance (NPA-555-1212) to the new area code and then be charged 90 cents per DA call by AT&T? While it doesn't sound like much the numbers of "extra 70 cents/calls" will add up and somebody makes a bundle -- yet I get no better service than before. Can anyone justify the extra cost? If 609 is split into two area codes several smaller towns end up being split 65/35% into both area codes. If someone dials 609-555-1212 for such a split city, will the 609 DA operators be able to give the DA info for the non-609 part of town or will remote DA callers simply get billed for the DA call and be told to redial the correct area code (which happens on wrong NPA-555 calls today)? Any comments? Can anybody provide some call volumes from prior NPA splits which might size the "extra costs to Callers"? Secondarily -- Bell Atlantic charges differing amounts fo DA services in each state or situation: NJ Residential = six free DA calls then 20 cents/call thereafter PA Residential = two free DA calls then 57 cents/call thereafter Yet as C-LECs and IXCs work with Bell Atlantic for handling their DA traffic, BA charges somewhere between 28 to 35 cents per DA call landed and given out -- can anyone attempt to explain so many prices from the same business for the same service? Isn't DA one of the "cost plus" services under the FCC ruling? Lou [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At least around this part of the country in Chicago (Ameritech territory) we are able to still use 411 regardless of the actual area code (312/630/708/773/847) involved. There is no extra cost involved other than what is usually charged for directory assistance. Area 815 however is not included, and never was available through our local 411. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 96 00:38:36 EDT From: Lou Jahn <71233.2444@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Will Full Number Portability Occur? While the FCC has just started LEC's moving toward Number Portability several of us were arguing whether "Full" Portability will ever occur (or how far does the FCC plan to go)? Within an area code the FCC is stating that in two-three years I can keep my telephone number as I move amoung local LECs, but does the FCC and industry plan to go eventually to "Full" portability so I can take my NPA-NXX-#### with me to Cailifornia, PA or FL? If this can occur someday -- why keep on expanding NPAs -- aren't they about to become just part of the routing game? Once I can take my number across a LATA boundary, dont' we have universal routing similar to 800/888 services? Who pays for re-engineering the full network to provide such service? First -- can I assume "local Number portability" will occur no matter the cost? If that is a definite, can anyone shed a longer term prognosis for number portability beyond a given LATA? Suppose you move to the next town in a diffeent LATA, do you need to take on new numbers yet someone moving within a LATA will not? How will it be Handled in "overlay area codes"? I'd love to see a "Dick and Jane" story version of the longer term industry plans for portability ... sounds like we are headed for ten digit dialing either due to increasing NPAs or from portability. Lou ------------------------------ From: Tom Worthington Subject: TCP Parameters For GSM Data? Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 16:27:18 -0700 Can anyone suggest appropriate settings for the TCP/PPP software to work with the GSM standard? The parameters are: * Maximum Transmission Unit * Receive Window * TCP Maximum Segment Size * TCP Retransmission Time Out I purchased a GSM mobile phone with a PC card interface cable a few weeks ago. It works very well with the dial-up PPP software for connecting to the Internet (http://acslink.net.au/~tomw/travel/balloon.htm). I just used the same parameters as for the land line connection. However I assume GSM uses some sort of packetised data and it would be better to have the software set to suit the GSM packet size. Tom Worthington President, Australian Computer Society, GPO Box 446, Canberra ACT 2601 http://www.acslink.net.au/~tomw 1996 World Conference on Mobile Communications, Sep 96 in Canberra: http://www.acs.org.au/ifip96/mobile.html ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: 1+ Dialing and How it's Billed Date: 16 Aug 1996 17:44:55 GMT Organization: Pipeline On Aug 16, 1996 00:08:37 in article , 'cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti)' wrote: > John, you are implying here that the '1' dialed at the beginning of a > long distance call chooses the *company* that carries the call. No. > The company carrying the call is chosen by regulatory boundaries, by > default carriers, and by 10XXX or 101XXXX codes. Actually, in my case, Yes. If I dial intra-NPA to AC, as in your example, using 345-xxxx, the charge appears on the LEC portion of my bill. If I dial using 1-609-345-xxxx, it appears on the LD carrier portion of my bill (or at least it has been appearing there.) Of course, BA was also charging me for local calls to my neighbor before they realized that my (new) local exchange was part of the same Trenton calling area. So is my experience a fluke, or is it policy to refer ALL 1+ calls to my LD provider? John Cropper NiS / NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Inside NJ : 609.637.9434 Outside NJ: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) Fax : 609.637.9430 email : psyber@usa.pipeline.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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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 V16 #420 ******************************