Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA22659; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:01:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:01:29 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802020501.AAA22659@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #24 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Feb 98 00:01:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pay-phone Calls to Get Up-Front Pricing (Tad Cook) AT&T Being Overly Selective About Credit/Calling Cards (Chris Farrar) Cyberpromo Goes to MCI/the UK?? (John Cropper) FCC and Surcharge Complaints (Ron Walter) 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books (Garrett Wollman) MobileWorld Update - January 1998 (Matthew McDonald) Action Line in the San Jose Mercury News (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Pay-phone Calls to Get Up-Front Pricing Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:05:04 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Mercury News Wire Services WASHINGTON -- Federal phone regulators, in a move to drive down the cost of long-distance calls placed from hotels and pay phones, decided Thursday to make telephone companies tell consumers up front how much such calls will cost. The new rule involves long-distance calls made from a non-residential phone, where a customer must dial 0 plus the area code and number to make a call. Charges for these "0-plus" calls are the third-largest source of consumer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, averaging about 4,000 complaints a year. Customers often think calls made from a hotel or pay phone will cost about the same as those made from a home phone, and often are surprised to see bills much higher than expected. For instance, one consumer complained to the FCC about being charged $9.58 for a two-minute call. Another was charged $63 for a 40-minute call. The FCC's action does not change what companies charge for such service. But the commission believes the disclosure requirement eventually will pressure companies with high rates to lower them. Behind each pay phone is a company responsible for its service -- from carrying calls to providing operator assistance. Hundreds of companies are in this business, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint. Smaller companies serve hundreds of thousands of phones. Here's how the FCC's plan works: After dialing a long-distance number from a pay phone, hotel phone or other public phone, callers would hear a recorded message giving them the option to get price information. If callers wanted that information, they could press the pound or star key, or stay on the line. Then the company providing service to the phone would disclose the per-minute charges as well as any surcharges. After getting the information, callers could hang up without incurring any charges. If callers don't want price information, they could bypass the message. The new rules take effect July 1. Although callers would not be charged directly for price information, companies will be allowed to pass along to customers any increased costs resulting from complying with the FCC's plan. "The FCC today, instead of targeting the companies that charge rip-off rates, is applying a regulatory solution that will unnecessarily raise costs to the entire long-distance industry," said Rick Bailey, AT&T vice president, federal government affairs. AT&T wanted the FCC to place a ceiling on the rates that the "offending" companies could charge. But others said the action will help consumers by providing them needed information. "It gives consumers the information they need to make a real, informed choice," said FCC Chairman William Kennard. Currently, customers may think they're using their traditional long-distance phone company when making a 0-plus call, said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of Consumers Union. The FCC also voted on a draft proposal that would streamline the agency's rules regarding the Bell companies' ability to offer information services, such as voice mail and electronic mail. Under the proposal, the Baby Bell companies and GTE Corp. no longer would need to seek FCC approval before offering new information services. That would help spur competition, by getting the new services out to the market quicker, Richard Metzger, chief of the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau said. The rules won't become final until after the agency receives public comment on the regulations, and makes any desired changes. ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: AT&T Being Overly Selective About Credit/Calling Cards Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:31:50 -0500 Organization: Bell Solutions AT&T (US) last year ran ads in the major Toronto (Canada) newspapers that 1-800-CALL-ATT was a great way to call friends/relatives in the USA from Canada, and they accepted a Bell Canada Calling Card. The other day, I was trying to call to the US from behind a PBX that blocked access to 0+ calls (which is supposedly legal in Ontario) {you can't even dial "0" to reach an operator}. It did however allow calls to 1-800 numbers. So I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to call from Richmond Hill (Ontario, just north of Toronto) to Hilton Head (South Carolina, just north of Savanaha GA). After punching in my card 905457XXXXYYYY a ringing is heard (rather than the "Thank You for using AT&T") and an "operator" comes on the line: "ATandT" "Calling Card Call" "Card number please" "905457XXXXYYYY" "Its coming up declined. Would you like to bill the call some other way?" Called up the card issuer, Bell Canada, via their "310-BELL" number (a seven digit version of an 800/888 number in Bell Territory). They confirmed that my phone account was in good standing, and that they had no blocks on the use of my card. Why in the world is AT&T declining it? Next time I'm in Niagara Falls/Buffalo NY I'm going to try using the CIC codes for AT&T, Sprint, MCI et al, and see if that will go through. Either AT&T or Bell is lying, but as the card works at Bell payphones for 0+, I'm sure it isn't Bell ... Anyone (Bell Canada or AT&T USA) have an idea? Is it because my home LD is through Bell Canada and not AT&T Canada? Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Cropper From: John Cropper Subject: Cyberpromo Goes to MCI/the UK?? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:31:34 -0500 Just received this, and wonder if they were any relation to their scummy American counterparts in my back yard ... -----Original Message----- From: email@cyberpromouk.net.force9.net To: MAILER-DAEMON@exchange-98.ms.com Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 18:29 Subject: UK Power Data! > Welcome to Cyberpromo UK email marketing services > We provide: > * UK Standalone emailshots > * UK Email address lists > * UK fax marketing database > * UK full data marketing database > *What are Standalone e-mailshots? > A standalone e-mailshot is an email message (your advertisement > or promotion) sent to thousands of recipients. Cyberpromo UK > offer such a mailshot service. We perform standalone mailshots > (cost 490.00) with a guaranteed minimum distribution of 250,000 > to either UK businesses, general UK internet users, or both. All > you need to provide us with is your message, which can be faxed, > emailed or posted to us, and upon receipt of payment, your mailshot > will be performed within seven days. > *What are the advantages / disadvantages of email marketing? > Advantages: Tens of thousands of email messages an hour can be > sent with a marketing message or promotion at, comparatively, very > low cost, using an internet connection, and an email address list. > Compare email with the cost of conventional marketing techniques > like magazine advertising - which rely on a publication's circulation, > or postal mailshots - which require an address list, printing, envelopes, > administration and postage etc., a single piece of postal mail can cost > up to 70 pence to send! > No paper is wasted using email, also, if a recipient doesn't want the > email - they can just hit the delete button, which means email marketing > saves earth's resources and is ecologically and environmentally friendly, > and when correctly implemented, internet marketing is the preferred > future tool for business promotion. Therefore the main advantages of > email marketing are: > Protection of the Environment > Low Cost > Speed > Disadvantages: > Only one: A handful of complaints! A small minority take particular > offence at receiving unsolicited messages or 'spam'. This is understandable > in part, as UCE (unsolicited commercial email) from the US is pandemic, > and most of the 'adverts' are junk, mainly rip-off get rich quick and > multi-level marketing ploys, and once the 'spammers' have your address, > there is usually no way of getting off their lists. > Cyberpromo UK's experience to date has been that the complainant will be > awkward and try to get the sender's email accounts and web pages shut > down, rather than hit the delete button. Saying that, per mailshot of over > 250,000 recipients, we probably only get half a dozen Mr. Angrys as we > have honoured all 'REMOVE' requests we have received to date. > Using state of the art technology, we have collected up to date email > addresses for the UK divided into two main categories - businesses and > general consumers. These email addresses have been collected from all the > main UK service providers, and from every registered .co.uk domain in the > UK. The addresses have then been verified for deliverability, and placed in > our master lists. The data is updated weekly. > Our business email addresses include over 105,000 UK businesses with > an internet presence, and at least one contact address per business. > Our general email addresses are of over 230,000 UK internet users. > *Targeted email address data. > Cyberpromo UK proudly announce our two databases on CD-ROMs > containing fully targeted email address data sorted by US SIC > (standard industry code). UKbase covers approx 105,000 UK businesses, > EURObase covers approx 390,000 European businesses. > *UKemailbase & EUROemailbase CD-ROM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This piece of trash goes on for several more screens -- I've deleted the rest. PAT] > To have your email address removed from this list - simply send an > email to cyber-uk@mci2000.com with REMOVE in the subject line. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sure it must be Spamford or maybe one of his half-witted family members or business associates. He lies about the 'handful of complaints from Mister Angry'. There are millions of complaints -- netters around the world -- angry and totally fed up with spam. Well guys, it appears it is now time to go to work on mci2000.com ... let's get him tossed off of there ASAP and begin letting the admins there know what is likely to happen if they allow cyberpromo to remain as a customer. I have to wonder if anyone has ever collected up a list of several thousand names and fed them all en-masse to one of those 'remove' addresses just to see what happens? Obviously nothing ever actually gets removed, so it won't hurt of one of those 'remove' addresses/scripts gets totally trashed will it? I think as a courtesy I'll start sending my entire mailing list piped to any 'remove' address I find, and Lord knows I get enough spam each day to keep the MIT mailer busy all the time. Trouble with that is, I am not sure if they just ignore it or if they actually take those names and send still more spam. I would not like to be responsible for causing a reader to get still more than he does already. :( Anyway, let's see what kind of disciplinary action can be taken at this point where mci2000.com is concerned. It may not be too late to salvage that ISP and keep them a useful netizen if they receive an example now and have an opportunity to dump the Bozo before the net dumps all over them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 12:00:01 -0600 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Organization: Capitol City Telephone Subject: FCC and Surcharge Complaints In this morning's paper was an interesting article from the AP that the FCC was getting a number of complaints about the charges being passed on by long distance companies for surcharges. The only specific carrier named was MCI. Two particular sections interested me. First: "The FCC says the charges didn't increase the total dollar amount long distance companies pay local companies to connect calls. It just changed the way the charges are assessed -- from a per-minute basis to a per-line basis." Then, after telling a little bit about how MCI was distributing the charge, it quotes an MCI spokesperson: "'This is the best system to apply the charges broadly," Sallet said. Sallet said MCI will not fully recover from its customers the fees it must pay to local phone companies to connect to their networks. He estimated that will cost MCI $350 million this year. "In the next few days, the FCC plans to post on its Web site a consumer fact sheet about the charges, Nakahata (FCC spokesperson) said." My first reaction is, I take issue with the comments from MCI if the part about how the connection charges is true. If I understand correctly, the long-distance companies no longer have to pay the LEC's a per-minute charge, instead they pay a charge based on the number of lines. If MCI is passing on the per-line connection charges to their customer, but not reducing per-minute rates, then I don't see how MCI is doing anything other than increasing their revenue. This whole issue is of particular interest to me. We have a very small long distance resale business and had been using Worldcom as our carrier. A few months ago, we started switching over to a different carrier and by now most of our customers have been moved. Our last bill from Worldcom was for $2,700 of long distance and $2,100 of PIC surcharges. We have, at the most, 55 phone numbers still active with Worldcom, we got charged for 785 lines. What is interesting is that our current provider is not passing on the PIC surcharges. And the way I understand it, they don't end up losing any money (unless you consider not getting the extra money that would have come from the surcharges as a loss). I would be interested to find out if anyone has had similar experience of excessive charges, or any further insight on these charges. I close with a quote from the article. Bill Nakahata of the FCC said "Customers who feel like they've gotten the wrong end of the deal can and should go shopping, because not all carriers are doing the same thing. Consumers have the ability to stop the problem right away." ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books Date: 1 Feb 1998 19:56:32 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science The 617/781 and 508/978 splits officially went mandatory today. By a curious coincidence, my building's 1998 directories were delivered today as well. A few comments on both ... BankBoston (the bank formed last year by the merger of BayBanks and [the First National] Bank of Boston) likes to force its telephone banking customers to pick up local usage charges. To that end, they have obtained the same number, 788-5000, in all three old Massachusetts area codes. I experimented a bit with these numbers today. (For reference, the old 617-788 exchange was in Waltham, and is now 781-788. 413-788 is in Springfield. 508-788 is in Framingham, and remains in 508.) Inter-NPA local calls are supposed to be dialed as 10D. I was able to dial 781-788-5000 as 10D and connect to the service, where I had previously dialed 7D. There is a new message advising customers that 'for a short period' it will be necessary to dial 781-788-5000; this suggests to me that BankBoston are well on their way to adding 617-788 to their collection of exchanges. Curiously enough, the same message (with the reference to 781) was also played on calls to 508-788-5000. 781-788 is not yet mandatory in my exchange (617-277 ASPinwall, in the Brookline CO); dialing 7D still gets me BankBoston (unless they already have a new 617-788 running, which seems unlikely but possible). As yet there is no 978-788, and calls to such numbers intercept after the exchange prefix with ' The number you are trying to reach is located in area code five-zero-eight.' Attempting to dial 1-617-788 also goes to intercept, but with the odd ' To make a long-distance call, dial one and the area code.' (Not that I would have felt any better to get 'It is not necessary to dial one to make this call' as happens in some benighted places.) I did not try any 781 calls as 1+10D. Bell Atlantic has continued NYNEX's practice of having some artist make impressionistic watercolors of some famous local building for the cover of each directory. The 1997 books commemorated the centenary of the Tremont Street Subway, the oldest continuously operating in North America. The 1998 Boston books commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Boston Public Library, which the caption alleges is the world's oldest municipal public library. The main BPL building, fronting Copley Square in Boston, was recently renovated at great expense. My Brookline, Allston, Brighton community directory shows the John F. Kennedy Birthplace National Historic Site in Brookline. The community directory also inexplicably includes as its last page the ZIP codes for a random collection of localities in southern New Hampshire. The 'Inside Interest' pages have been substantially updated, although they are no longer printed on glossy paper as in previous editions. Still sorely missing is a reasonable-scale map of the directory coverage area showing principal streets, neighborhoods, and suchlike. There is an alleged coverage map on the back of the white pages, but it contains numerous errors and does not show municipal or neighborhood boundary lines or most important streets. The 'Inside Interest' pages for the first time now carry advertising, most notably a display ad for the local soon-to-be-CBS-owned all-sports radio station on the page with seating charts for the local arenas, and a small ad for NEXT Ticketing on the page showing concert venues (perhaps not coincidentally, all commonly owned). The area code maps continue the current trend of becoming almost useless for states with multiple area codes. As in last year's directory, the new Caribbean area codes are not shown on the map at all, and readers are uselessly directed to the section on international calling, which only lists Haiti and the Netherlands and French Antilles (those being the islands which are not part of the NANP and thus have their own country codes). Am I the only person who thinks they should have a full-page display talking about these codes and the fact that it is possible to make an international call within the NANP? The numerical listing of area codes is substantially more up-to-date than the maps, including a number of codes which have yet to even take effect. Guam is shown as both +671 in the international listing, and as +1 671 in the area-codes-by-number listing. One suspects that when this change is completed, they will drop the former but still leave Guam off the map. As if all this weren't enough, a number of communities in the Boston area will also be changing ZIP codes this summer. The Postal Service is attempting to reclaim numbers in the 021- and 022- ranges, to which end they are revoking Brockton's long-standing 024- numbers, and redistributing them to a number of 021- communities in the West Suburban area. Yesterday's {Globe} names those communities as Brookline, Newton, Needham, Wellesley, Weston, Waltham, Lexington, Arlington, and Belmont. (I wonder if this means the Postal Service will finally admit that I and my neighbors don't actually live in Brookline, 02146, but actually in Brighton, most of which is 02135. Probably not ...) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: matthew@mobile_REMOVE_world.org (Matthew McDonald) Subject: MobileWorld Update - January 1998 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:22:21 GMT Organization: MobileWorld Reply-To: matthew@mobile_REMOVE_world.org Contains a host of information on anything you need to know on GSM systems and now branching out into Analogue information. The most comprehensive and the original site for all information. GSM Information, GSM FAQ, GSM Phone Information, GSM Phone Reviews, Phone Links, GSM Phone Secrets, GSM Quick Reference Guide, GSM Future, GSM Network Listings and NEW is Analogue secrets (limited info at the moment). Battery Information - the REAL story; Cellular Safety Information; GSM SIM card pictures from around the world and Much Much MORE ... Visit MobileWorld today at http://www.mobileworld.org/ Regards Matthew McDonald Editor MobileWorld http://www.mobileworld.org/ Brisbane, Australia ------------------------------ Subject: Action Line in the San Jose Mercury News Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:39:39 -0800 (PST) From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (For old time TELECOM Digest readers, wasn't this John Higdon's favorite newspaper?? :) ) An excerpt from Action Line in the {San Jose Mercury News}: Cracking down on junk faxes Q: I recently read about a state law that says companies sending out "junk faxes" had to provide an 800 number you could call to be removed from their list. I've received several junk faxes about a ">>get<< >>rich<< >>quick<<" scheme that provides such a toll-free number. I sent a request to that "do not fax" number, but I'm still getting their transmissions, sometimes as many as 25 in a single day. I pay for my own fax paper and need the machine to be available for my business clients. I want this to stop. Can you tell me what the law says and is there anything else I can do to stop this? -- Kim M. Rose, Cupertino A: You summed up the law pretty well. Sec. 17538.4 of the state Business and Professions Code says companies sending unsolicited faxes must provide a toll-free number where recipients can request that such transmissions stop. Violators can be fined up to $500 for each transmission sent after the stop request is received. The Federal Communications Commission has similar rules on the books (known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act). Robin Wakshull, a spokeswoman for the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, says it doesn't matter if the company is in another state -- if it is doing business in California, it must abide by the law. However, she says tracking down violators of this unsolicited fax law can be tricky. In many cases, these companies are boiler room-type operations that set up temporary shop, then move before they can be tracked down. Still, the DA's office staff can investigate the matter if you provide copies of the unwanted faxes and any other information you might have about the company. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's office can be reached at (408) 792-2880. You also might consider sending a detailed letter about the situation to the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau, Consumer Complaints Office, Mail Stop 1600A2, Washington, D.C. 20554. Keep in mind, however, that these rules do not apply to unwanted messages sent via e-mail or the Internet. Chain e-mail a hoax Q: I just received an e-mail supposedly from "Bill Gates and the Microsoft Development Team." It asks for my help in testing new "electronic-mail tracing" software for Microsoft. It asks to me to forward the letter to everyone I know, and if it reaches 1,000 people, I'll get $1,000 and a copy of Windows 98, courtesy of Microsoft. I'm sure it can't be real, but figured it'd be best to ask the experts. What does Action Line think? -- S. Belfield, San Jose A: We think you shouldn't expect $1,000.00 or the software package to land in your mailbox anytime soon. The chain e-mail is a hoax, confirms a Microsoft spokeswoman. The company's software testing is performed in-house or with preselected user groups -- not the general public, she says. The hoax first came to Microsoft's attention late last year, and the company has received more than 100 inquiries about the letter. Furthermore, the official says Windows 98 is not available to the public at this time. ------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well actually, you can download a beta version of Windows 98 from one of the servers at microsoft.com. It would help to have a very fast connection and a very clean line to your ISP. Using a 'fast' modem, their estimated time for the download was several hours going at 28.8 ..... gee I wish I could go at least 56 K ... but then, considering how jammed up the net is these days, I guess all I would be doing is hurrying up so I could wait that much longer for a page to appear. I honestly suspect I could plod along at 9600 baud and do as well as I do now. Is it just me, or is the web getting slower than ever? I was online Sunday afternoon looking at a couple of sites which -- in theory -- should have been beautiful and quite interesting. But when I connected and my browser (I tried both IE-4 and Netscape 3.0) informed me '14 more pictures to retrieve' and I had about twenty percent of the first of those pictures after about a minute of waiting, I got disgusted and gave up on it. And if anyone tries to tell me that Net Meeting (or other internet phone applications) are going to be a serious threat to telco at any time in the distant future, I'll laugh at them. Also Sunday afternoon I was checking out ils(1 thru 5).microsoft.com as well as the servers at four11.com ... they were all extremely sluggish and congested and if there was one user on line for non-sexual reasons I somehow missed seeing him. It took several minutes from each to get a directory of who was on line; it seemed that each user had some protocol different than the others; the two attempts I made to connect with users there (I had the handle 'software testing') met with 'connection timed out' or 'cannot locate the user' messages. It all seemed dreadful. Regarding 'voice-related' applications, America OnLine is now offering 'voice email'. You record your message using your sound card and the software they sell you, then it gets sent like email to the other person who gets to listen to it on Real Player or similar; I assume with all the bumps and grinds caused by network congestion any other time I attempt to use Real Player for a radio station, etc. And someone else has come up with 'Visual IRC' ... isn't that cute? It is IRC for the unwashed masses, but you can send audio and video in the process. Like Real Player and Net Meeting, it looks and sounds terrible. The internet has really dropped to the lowest common denominator; Usenet has been a cesspool -- a plugged up toilet -- for years now; and thanks to the people who feel they have to use dozens of pictures, java scripts and other gimmicks on their web pages now plodding around the web has become quite unpleasant also. So if I want to run simple text messages on a web page intended to supplement this Digest, you still get to wait forever forever for a connection while lots of other people are busy showing off their sexual organs to each other and asking 'are you m or f? how old? ...' and running outlandish web pages. And I should not criticize my 'good friend' Bill Gates :) but Micro- soft has a 'gallery' where one can download the newest thing in web pages: they call them 'scriptlets' -- which as MS informs us is not a new type of chewing gum; rather, they are scripts which you insert in your web page which run on the caller's machine after he connects with your page. I call your web page and you hand me a script which unknowing to me, starts running on my machine. Naturally they have it fixed so it only works on IE-4 browsers; I tried a few with Netscape only to have Netscape complain about 'java script errors' which it could not understand or deal with. These scriptlets are free; they want you to take them and use them on your own web page. So, Internet, Usenet and the World Wide Web go the way of CB radio; what else is old news? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #24 ***************************** NOTE: ISSUE 25 WAS MAILED OUT OF SEQUENCE FOLLOWING ISSUE 26 AND IT APPEARS IN THIS ARCHIVE AFTER ISSUE 26 (NEXT)