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