Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA09805; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:07:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604261807.OAA09805@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #203 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 203 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Alan Toscano) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Michael D. Adams) Operations and Maintainence Philosophies for NBST (Anthony Spiering) Need Help With Internetmci.com (Barry Mishkind) MCI Offers $500.00 For Free LD Usage (bradbs@aol.com) Can I Cash This Check From LD Company? (Henoch Duboff) Re: CompuServe Called "Indecent" by Family Association (Declan McCullagh) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Lynne Gregg) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Henry Baker) Last Laugh! Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures (USA Today via readers) 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: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:26:15 GMT From: Alan Toscano Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 What appears to be happening is that one or more (or maybe all) of the Mutual Honoring Agreements between AT&T and LECs regarding Calling Card verification and billing, expire on 4/30/96. As a result, calls dialed 0+ may no longer be able to be charged to an AT&T card. To keep things simple, AT&T is instructing its customers to always dial through 800-CALL-ATT, but many other methods will continue to work. Notwithstanding illegal interception/splashing, blocking, and other COCOT/AOS tricks, you should be able to continue to place 10288-0+ calls as always. On the other hand, if you've been using an LEC calling card to place calls over the AT&T network, you might soon be out-of-luck! Alan Toscano 5090 Richmond Ave, Box 212 Houston, TX 77056-7402 Phone: 1 500 HI-ALAN-T ------------------------------ From: mda@triskele.com (Michael D. Adams) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: 25 Apr 1996 19:35:25 GMT Organization: nil turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) writes: > Per Mark's post about operator interception of calling card calls ... > Calling card fraud is a big problem, especially to certain places. > Thieves watch phone booths in busy areas (airports, train stations, > esp in places like NYC) and copy down calling card numbers. These > numbers are then used to sell calls for poor immigrants. > When entering your calling card in a public phone, try to block the > view of your dialing to prevent theft of the number. An interesting twist on this ... When I received my Sprint bill a day or two ago, included was this notice: Sprint wants to protect you from fradulent international calls on your FONCARD. Beginning in April 1996, your card will be restricted from international calling. If you plan to make international FONCARD calls, call Customer Service. Michael D. Adams Baltimore, MD mda@triskele.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:05:20 +1000 From: Anthony Spiering Subject: Operation and Maintainence Philosophies for NBST Hello Pat, I am after some general information on the structure of operations and maintenance of narrowband switching technology. I am not after specifics or confidential information but I would like to know the general trends and philosophies driving narrow band switching maintenance for telco's who are full service providers in the USA. My questions are: Q1 Is the maintenance trend moving towards centralised structure or decentralised structure? Q2 What would be the average number of lines per maintenance centre (eg 1 million)? Q3 What would be the average number of staff for such a centre? Q4 How are software changes implemented (major/minor)? Are they done remotely or locally? What is the level of vendor participation in software changes? (Does the vendor supply and install the package or does the vendor supply and the telco test and install) Q5 Do maintenance staff have expertise across various switching technologies? Q6 What would be the average number of lines per node for digital switched, what would be the maximum number of lines for any one node? Q7 What is that ratio of analog switched (ie cross bar) verses digital switched (AXC)? Q8 How are routing data changes implemented in the network (ie are they generated by hand or machine) and how are the loaded? Any comment on the effectiveness on how they feel they operate currently. Regards, Anthony Spierings as029@powerup.gov.au (Play) as029@seqeb.gov.au (Work) ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Need Help With Internetmci.com Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:29:28 -0700 Organization: The Eclectic Engineer It seems that MCI's efforts to be important in the internet game continue to fall very short of that to which I would want to subscribe. Not too long ago, I wrote to relate how postmaster@mcimail.com was essentially directed to /dev/nul -- not answered -- regardless of the claims of supervisors whom you could reach. In the end, I did get a nice note from a "real supervisor" who acknowledged the problems, and suggested they were in process of being fixed. (In fact, during the current trouble, I actually got a reply from postmaster@mcimail.com, although the content was: "internetmci.com is another division.") In any event, this MCI division is following the same path. I have been receiving (as many folk with mailing lists have been) a lot of bounce messages from internetmci. However, I don't see anything there to identify the account that is bouncing. The message is barely English, and contains this extremely informative sort of gibberish: > Delivery attempt history for your mail: > > Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:35:59 EDT > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed > -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded > > Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:23:13 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > > Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:10:10 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > > Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:05:23 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output You'll notice there is nothing to indicate who sent the mail. There is only the header from the mailing list prepended to this stuff. I've tried calling MCI. I've tried their press office, where a nice person actually tried to help, giving me a phone number in VA where the "supervisor for internetmci" had his office. Unfortunately, he is no longer in that position. The press lady did get me to the next chairholder, a John Scarborough, but the best I could get there is voice mail (maybe this guy is doing vacation relief for Robin Loyed?). After more than two days, there has not been a return call nor email message. Email to MCI's comments section of their web page returns this cheery note: "MCI's Electronic Customer Service has received your request. We will respond shortly with an E-Mail summary of the actions taken on your request." Unfortunately, there is apparently no one home there. Again, well over two days have passed without further contact. Email to postmaster@internetmci.com is apparently ignored. In fact, this afternoon, I got this wonderful item: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:38:20 -0400 (EDT) From: PMDF Mail Server Subject: Undeliverable mail: Processing failure To: barry@broadcast.net These addresses were rejected: postmaster@internetmci.com not found in directory Return-path: barry@broadcast.net .... So, apparently, the solution to my two week-long requests for help (escalating in verbal intensity, I must admit) was for internetmci to simply unplug "postmaster"... I'd hate to have to delete all mailing list users who have internetmci.com as their domain, but does anyone else have an alternative solution to my receiving several dozen useless bounce messages from internetmci??? Thanks much, Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is not much you can do short of taking the action you described and removing all the names. Then, you let the ones who are alive and active and still interested in getting your publication write back to you and complain when they are not seeing anything. At that point you ask them if they can possibly receive your mail via some other location. I did the same thing, and got rid of them all at one point. Now I have only two names on my list from there. Bear in mind also, its not like they were as cooperative and friendly as (for example) Compuserve or even AOL where internet e-journal moderators/list maintainers have been able at times to cut deals of their own with the administration as I have done. Both of those services receive *huge* amounts of mail from me for their subscribers, all of whom are required to pay CIS/AOHELL good sums of money each month. That being the case, that I effectively generate some money for those services means I want a small piece of the action. If you charge, then I charge. End of discussion. I am not referring to the small ISPs getting $15 per month for unlimited use and all that. I mean the big guys. MCI on the other hand has never done anything for me; to the contrary over the years it has been difficult at times to work with them. Remember a few years ago when mcimail.com used to take any letter with multiple addresses and if any single address was bad, they would junk it all and not deliver to the other addressees either? When InternetMCI had that press conference at the time of their start up and announced how they would be including all the Usenet news groups and mailing lists, etc for their subsribers I tried to call in and ask Vint Cerf what did they plan to do for the moderators whose work they were in effect ripping off and reselling ... I got no answer then and still have none now; so unlike yourself with some concern about what to do other than remove all the names at that site, I am not quite so concerned. I just flow with the tide. If it ever gets as bad as it was with mcimail.com prior to them upgrading their system, then I'll just alias-out the site and forget it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bradbs@aol.com (Bradbs) Subject: MCI Offers $500.00 For Free LD Usage Date: 25 Apr 1996 18:09:18 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bradbs@aol.com (Bradbs) MCI has called my office and offered us up to $500 to switch. The $500 is in the form of a certificate and can be used on any month I choose. Has anyone heard of this offer? What are the draw backs? Can I use the free long distance and then switch to another carrier afterward? Please email any information to Bradbs@aol.com Thanks, Brad [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read the contract terms carefully as printed on the certificate or anything you are expected to sign. If there is no time limit on the certificate then I guess you can, but watch your bills closely for any sign of deceptiveness by MCI. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hd@chai.com (Henoch Duboff) Subject: Can I Cash This Check From LD Company? Date: 25 Apr 1996 23:20:34 GMT Organization: CHAI.COM Hello. I had switched from one long-distance company to another a little while back. Since then, I have received a "check" from the old company, which appears to be a real check, except that: 1. I must call a 1-800 number to obtain a code to be written on the face of the check to validate it, and 2. The back reads "VOID IF ALTERED." There is a statement on the back which indicates that by my endorsing this check, I authorize my local telco to switch my LD company. My question is, first of all, is this legal, given banking regulations? Can I cross out that stuff and still cash the check, even though the check indicates I must have a validation # written on it and it is void if altered? (Is this a legitimate restriction to place on a check?) Thanks, Henoch Duboff hd@chai.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is legal, and whether you call that phone number or make any changes on the back side of the check as soon as you cash it you WILL be converted to 'that carrier'. However if the check is 'improperly endorsed' the carrier might decide to refuse to pay on it and it would be returned to your bank as 'stop payment' or 'refer to maker'. Furthermore, tampering with the indicia on any negotiable instrument is a rather grey area legally. If the check was large enough, the carrier might decide to make a stink. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:53:06 EDT From: Declan B. McCullagh Subject: Re: CompuServe Called "Indecent" by Family Association Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 24-Apr-96 CompuServe Called "Indecent.. by John Shaver EMETF@huachu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... Now that is going way to far, to claim > that Compuserve is indecent. Admittedly, some of the chat rooms are > pretty raunchy, but over all, CIS is *not* an indecent service. PAT] One of the many problems with the CDA is that its "indecency" standard doesn't take into account if the material, taken as a whole, has redeeming social, literary, artistic, or political value. In fact, material that courts have held to be "indecent" includes some of the best poetry of this century: Allen Ginsberg's "Howl." This is what the CDA will criminalize, if Pat posts such "indecent" material publicly here in the TELECOM Digest. In the case the {San Jose Mercury News} covered, the American Family Association (AFA) is posturing for publicity, and nothing more. Thanks entirely to the efforts of the ACLU, the DoJ is prevented from enforcing either the "indecent" or "patently offensive" provisions of the CDA until the Philadelphia court decides. No matter what the AFA would like, the DoJ ain't investigating nobody right now. It's interesting to consider the history of the AFA, which is the most virulent "family values" organization involved in the fight for the CDA. Less than a week after Clinton signed the bill into law, the AFA screamed that the CDA "will never work" unless ISPs are subject to additional liability for "indecent" content. Some background: The AFA, headed by the Reverend Donald Wildmon, is based in Tupelo, Mississippi. Wildmon started out as a morality crusader in 1977 by founding the National Federation for Decency and attacking local video stores. Nearly twenty years later, he's still at it, but the AFA has transformed into a $5 million/year powerhouse with a claimed 425,000 members in 560 local branches. Now his biggest campaign is against Disney, though he's taken on Holiday Inn and Blockbuster Video at times. Along the way, Wildmon sparked many a "cultural war," starting in 1989 by attacking the National Endowment for the Arts -- adopting Robert Mapplethorpe as the AFA poster boy, of sorts. Wildmon also attacked Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ and is affiliated with (as a former Steering Committee member) the Coalition on Revivial, a fundamentalist reconstructionist group. Reconstructionists advocate the death penalty for abortionists and practicing homosexuals -- by stoning, if possible. The CDA is just the latest gambit by the theocratic right groups who want desperately to impose their own social agenda on the rest of the country. Declan Harvey Silverglate on Allen Ginsberg and indecency: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=390 American Family Association cries for more ISP liability: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1337 Excerpts from outbox: 24-Apr-96 Re: CompuServe Called "Inde.. by => O. News@andrew.cmu > Mississippi. Wildmon started out as a morality crusader in 1977 by > founding the National Federation for Decency and attacking local video > stores. Whoops! My mistake. Wildmon started out by attacking _network TV_, especially pornographic programs like "Charlie's Angels" and "Three's Company." Declan ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:42:42 GMT In article , Jon Krueger wrote: > Unless I very much miss my guess, the ads that PacBell is taking out, > while mandated by the CPUC, are designed and intended by PacBell to > get people to enable blocking. > Their ads are all the scare hot buttons, e.g. "Your phone, your > choice, your privacy." They run big scare headlines e.g. "your phone > number will be given out automatically each time you make a call -- > unless you block it." They make the case against callerID ("you may > not want sales people saving or selling your number") but present > nothing of the case for it. The words "harassing" or "annoying" call, > for instance, appear nowhere in the ad. Nor is a single instance of a > positive use of CallerID given. They portray the caller's point of > view, never that of the person getting the call. They never mention > that blocking won't block to 800 or 900 numbers, never has, and never > will. (This from yesterday's SF Chron full page ad; I think they had > enough space to talk about it :-) > The aim is not to inform, but to advocate. CPUC made them warn people > about the brave new world, but again, unless I miss my guess, the > slant in the ads was exclusively a decision of PacBell. [snip] Here in Los Angeles, I see the same ad in the {LA Times} two or three times a week. Also on the radio ad nausium. As Jon says, the ads do seem to be encouraging blocking. Apparently, either the print and radio ads were written by the CPUC or were a joint PacTel/GTE effort. The ones from GTE and Pa Bell are identical except for the company name in bottom corner of the print ads or the end of the radio ad, with a different 800 number to be called to ask for blocking. I don't know about TV ads, I hardly ever turn mine on. Rich Greenberg N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 Pacific time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky) ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 02:37:00 PDT jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon Krueger) wrote: > My inference is that PacBell is trying to get enough people to block > that most numbers will be blocked, thus rendering CallerID service > unattractive. > What difference does it make to PacBell? It will make a BIG difference in customer satisfaction to PacBell, since they intend to sell Caller ID service. My guess is that those ads had to pass CPUC scrutiny. I think what CPUC and PacBell are trying to do (ok, maybe OVER-do) is make the option to block number presentation very OBVIOUS to all California consumers. I agree with you, Jon, this emphasis will undoubtedly encourage many more consumers to go ahead and opt for Per Line Blocking, thus impairing the Caller ID service that is ultimately sold. Caller ID is a great service. The people who pay for it and receive many inbound calls appreciate it as a tool for call screening and prioritization. Customers are paying to see a number, not "ANONYMOUS" or "OUT of AREA" appear on their displays. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:33:07 GMT In article , jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon Krueger) wrote: > If this is the case, the mystery is why? What difference does it make > to PacBell? It's just another add-on for a fee. If anything, you'd > think they'd want to sell it, since they don't charge for blocking, > but do charge for CallerID. So why are they trying to torpedo it? > I'm sorry, but I don't think PacBell has become a privacy crusader all > of a sudden. What's really going on here? Perhaps PacBell is just as tired of government/regulatory mandates as everyone else. Perhaps PacBell agrees that 'complete blocking' should have been the default, and that anyone wanting to change could then change at their option, instead of being railroaded. The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for telemarketers and other time-wasters are very great. If only some small fraction of this effort could be redirected towards something useful -- e.g., ISDN or HDSL for each of our subscriber lines. www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:51:56 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got a dozen copies of this in the mail over the past few days. PAT] Allen's Telephone & Tool Belt >From USA TODAY, DATE: 04/19/96 By Kevin Maney Sometime in 1999: ``Hello. This is Bell Atlantic-Nynex-MCI-TCI-America Online customer service. May I help you?'' ``Yes, I'd like to report a problem with my telephone.'' ``Our records show you don't have local phone service through us.'' ``How'd you know who I am? I didn't give you my name.'' ``We have ways.'' ``Well, I'm pretty sure you have my phone service.'' ``Our records show you have long-distance, cellular, satellite TV, Internet access and your MasterCard through us. Your phone service must be through one of the other three big communications companies. Have you looked at your bill?'' ``My bill is 134 pages long.'' ``Oh, you're one of our light users. But we'd be happy to become your local phone provider. If you sign up, you get one-third off long-distance calls made on your cellular phone to friends and family members who have an Internet home page.'' ``It's tempting, but I just want my phone fixed.'' ``Fine, sir. Just a reminder: Next time you need to contact us, try our Internet site. And when you get there, you can sign up for a free showing, through your satellite TV system, of Hamlet starring Bell Atlantic-Nynex-MCI-TCI-America Online CEO Ray Smith.'' ``Thanks. Goodbye.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Good morning! This is SBC-Pacific Telesis-Sprint-GTE-Little Caesars.'' ``Little Caesars? You do pizza?'' ``You buy it over phone lines. It's content. Would you like one? You get a medium with two toppings when you order HBO on cable.'' ``Uh, no. I called because my phone line isn't working right.'' ``I see. Do you have your phone over your cable line or do you have your phone over a phone line.'' ``A phone line, I think.'' ``OK, then that's not SBC-Pacific Telesis-Sprint-GTE-Little Caesars. My file shows that you get cable TV and video games on demand from us, but in your area, we only offer phone service over cable lines. If you use a phone line, it must be one of the other companies.'' ``Thanks. I'll call them.'' ``And sir? We're testing some new products in your area. We're offering electric service and natural gas service for 10% less than the public utilities. One-stop shopping. We want to provide you with everything that comes into your house and connects to a device or appliance.'' ``No, thanks. Bye.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Hello. Endorphin Enterprises.'' ``I'm sorry. I must have dialed the wrong number.'' ``You're probably in the right place. We just changed our name. We used to be US West-UUNet-Universal Pictures-Ameritech, but that got pretty cumbersome. I guess they wanted to call it UUUUSA, but then decided to start fresh. So we're Endorphin Enterprises.'' ``Clever.'' ``Personally, I thought we should call ourselves Youse Guys. Get it?'' ``Yeah, that's good. Um, I was calling because my phone line doesn't seem to work right.'' ``Ohhhhh. What services do you have with us?'' ``I'm not sure.'' ``We offer everything: local, long-distance, cellular, cable TV, satellite TV, Internet access, music on demand and so on. But so does everybody else these days.'' ``Yes, well, it's gotten a little confusing. I've already called those two other companies with long names.'' ``Oh, right. OK, see, it looks like you don't have anything at all with us. Now, we could make your life easier by giving you all the services so you'd know who to call. Except in your area, we only offer movies on demand over the Internet, so that could be a problem.'' ``No, really, I just want to get my phone fixed.'' ``My guess is you must have your local phone service through AT&T. That's the only other company left in the business.'' ``OK, I'll try AT&T.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Hello. AT&T. Bob Allen speaking.'' ``Bob Allen? The chairman? I'm sorry. I wanted customer service.'' ``No problem. Hold on a moment.'' Pause. Rustling sounds.``Hello. Customer service. Bob Allen speaking.'' ``Mr. Allen, I really just wanted customer service.'' ``This is it. We spun off everything but my office. It goes totally against the megamerger trend. Our shareholders love it. I'm getting paid $55 billion this year.'' ``Well, sir, my phone line doesn't work right, and I think I need someone to come fix it.'' ``Be right there, as soon as I can find my tool belt.'' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #203 ******************************