Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14735; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:46:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:46:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701010446.XAA14735@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #688 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Dec 96 23:46:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 688 Inside This Issue: Happy New Year, Everyone! ISP's Will Get *NO* Refunds (Monty Solomon) Fraud Calls on Centrex ISDN PRI (Monty Solomon) The Information Age and TELCO Voice Networks (jfmezei) 900-Number Company Leaves TV Stations, "Psychics" Unpaid (Nigel Allen) Arkansas Splits ... Gets 870! (John Cropper) Internet by Satellite (Rob Gordon) Internet-Based Personal Information Services (Ted Lee) Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net (Eric Florack) Getting in the Last Word: That's All Folks! (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:09:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ISP's Will Get *NO* Refunds Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:55:06 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Dillon Subject: ISP's will get *NO* refunds Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting It now appear that the whole issue of ISP exemption from FCC Subscriber Line Charges is wrong, wrong, wrong. As I mentioned a month or so ago it appears that the people who have promoted this idea were getting the Network Access Charges (around two cents per minute) confused with the Subscriber Line Charge of $6 per line per month. ISP's are considered Enhanced Service Providers by the FCC and are thus exempt from the NAC but are explicitly required to pay the SLC. Period, end of story. In researching this whole issue I have discovered, via the ISP's who assisted me, that most telco people just don't have a clue about these charges and how or why the NAC is different from the SLC. At one point I expressed the opinion that the only known ISP to get a refund may have bamboozled their local telco into refunding money that they shouldn't have. Anyway, this whole thing started with some public statements by an organization called IDEA followed by a SPAM to all ISP's from IDEA. The evidence so far available publicly makes it appear that IDEA is lying about ever having collected telco refunds. And even if they did manage to bamboozle money out of the telco they did not deserve the refund and will have to pay it back. Here is what someone else discovered when they dug into IDEA and in particular note what Bell Atlantic said about refunds to Imagixx. > It may interest you to know that Shannon Hamra of LDD Net, who is > active with the AOP Internet Service Provider and Marketing SIGs (you > may have met her at the AOP conference last October), took the time to > contact IDEA and pursue them on this issue. Here's what she found: > 1) Though its name includes the word "Association," IDEA is a > for-profit corporation rather than a non-profit trade or professional > association. Their motivation is profit for themselves, not the good > of the industry or the defense of ISPs. > 2) When pressed, IDEA admitted that they have never actually > collected any money for any ISP. They do claim to have recovered such > monies for themselves, though Bell Atlantic has no record of such a > refund. At various times, IDEA has made claims to have recovered > money from Pac Bell and others, but is able to offer no substantiation > of these claims. > 3) When pressed for details of the alleged overcharges, IDEA sent > Hamra to the CIX web site. The document she was instructed to read > was, in fact, a draft white paper in response to the Clinton > Administration's GII (Global Information Infrastructure)/NII (National > Information Infrastructure) policy draft from last year. It only > encourages the White House to seek a continuation of existing > exemptions from per-minute access charges. IDEA also sent her to the > web site of the National Exchange Carrier Association, though that > site has nothing helpful to offer. Michael Dillon Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:10:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Fraud Calls on Centrex ISDN PRI Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:47:48 -0800 (PST) From: Earl Wallace Subject: Fraud Calls on Centrex ISDN PRI We are getting bills from PacBell on our Centrex ISDN PRI showing local, national and international calls originating from our PRI line. These calls are Voice, not data. And the caller is a not a modem or fax, but answering machines, people, etc. When you look at the bill it looks like a phone bill for a medium size company so we thought it might just be a simple PacBell translations problem but they say that the AMA tapes show the calls coming from us. The PRI is connected to an Ascend P400T1 and doesn't have any digital modems so we were wondering if it was possible for the Ascend to make a fully random Voice call to someone in Japan and hold a 58 minute conversation with another human being. Ascend agrees with us that couldn't happen. So we are pretty darn certain we are not originating these calls, now how do we get PacBell to troubleshoot this problem? As soon as I say the word "ISDN" to PacBell, they fall apart. They have been unable to get past the AMA Tapes to see what's going on. I wish the AMA Tape would say "Please send the customer a Lexus 400", but it doesn't. Bummer :-) We are either engaged in or will be with AT&T, FBI, FCC, CPUC, our reps at the Calif State and Sentate, Congressional reps, and others but are trying not to overheat the situation if there's a way to convince PacBell with a simple test. What I would like them to do is come out to our site and place some equipment on the demarc and see for themselves if we are generating any of these bogus calls. These calls are being made during the week, Mon-Fri, during the hours of 10:00am to 6:00pm. It works out to be about 9 calls a minute. They could stand there and stare at the test equipment for 2 hours and then go back to the CO and see what the AMA says during that time period. If the AMA shows calls and the test equipment at the demarc shows nothing, it would seem to me that PacBell would be satisfied that it's not being caused by our equipment and maybe they would actually start doing something to fix the problem. Does this seem like a logical, valid test? After all, I'm only trying to prove the calls are not originating from that line. Anyone know what test equipment can do this task, what is it called and where can I rent it? Is there a better way to solve this problem? TIA, -earlw P.S. - Is it possible to hate any company more than PacBell? ------------------------------ From: jfmezei Subject: The Information Age and TELCO Voice Networks Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:11:06 -0500 Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca With the advent of 57k modems which no longer work fully across POTS lines (ISP has digital trunk to the telco to bypass A/D converters), it seems that we have finally reached the speed limit of the conventional voice telephone networks. Even when one removes the A/D converters to get an ISDN line at 64kpbs, it is still not a very impressive rate compared to what cable companies can offer (1.5mbps). While one would never think about a telco going under, I am wondering if this will not become more and more likely as cable companies start to steal customers at first for data/fax and then for voice as well. If the telcos wait too long, by the time they wake up, will they still have enough strength to convert their huge voice infrastructure designed to give no more than 64kbps, into something more competitive? Can telcos afford NOT to act NOW to start to completely rethink their infrastructure? Can telcos afford do to it now? Is there any chance that during such a transition from the current telephone/voice infrastructure to a new one, a single standard would be adhered to by all north american telcos, or would there be different companies pushing for their own standards? Is there any chance that a telephone number may in fact become a TCP address (area code+ country = domain name?) Is there any chance that we will see fibre to the homes offered by telcos to compete against coax to the homes already installed by the cable companies? Is there any chance that wireless high-speed data may happen and steal the show from both cable and telco? Have we really reached the limit of the POTS-to-POTS modems at the speed of 33kbps? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:43:21 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: 900-Number Company Leaves TV Stations, "Psychics" Unpaid The {Montreal Gazette} reports that several television stations that aired infomercials for a 900-number psychic hotline haven't been paid. Some low-paid "psychics" also complained they hadn't been paid. The 900-number company is Integrated Communication Network Inc. of Miami, Florida. Calls to the company's psychic hotline were routed through a switch in Omaha, Nebraska, then connected to one of 2,000 people throughout North America working out of them home as psychics, the Gazette said. Callers were changed $4.99 a minute. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Arkansas Splits ... Gets 870! Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:03:29 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Most Arkansas media hasn't even moved on this yet but ... 501 Area Code to Split During the Coming Year Some Arkansas residents will be receiving a new area code next year. 870 has been announced for residents to the south, and west of Little Rock. SBC, the largest of the primary telecommunications service providers in the state, and the company responsible for assigning exchanges in the 501 area code, has been studying a plan to relieve the overburdened 501 area code. Under the proposed plan, Little Rock, and sections of the northeastern corner of the state would retain the 501 area code, while the remainder of the state will move to the 870 area code. No date for the final split has been announced yet, and SBC will plan informational meetings sometime after the first of the year. John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: robgordon@usa.net (Rob Gordon) Subject: Internet by Satellite Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 02:16:06 GMT Organization: Netcom INTERNET BY SATELLITE (Repost from Technology Transfer in International Development) Friends, I have developed an interest in the technology of establishing Internet connections by satellite and I would like to identify others with similar business interests. About a year ago, I saw a post that a small computer company in West Africa had filed with the U.S. Embassy Trade Opportunity Program. This company wanted to establish itself as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and resell connectivity services to its clients. They noted that their country's telecommunications industry was being deregulated and privatized and were looking for a consultant to help them with planning the service. Although I had no particular experience with this technology, I had once lived in their country and this struck me as a particularly good business opportunity. I wrote this company and found that they were impressed by my background and seemed sincerely interested in doing business with me. The American Embassy said they had good references and they were apparently well funded. After several phone conversations with the company, they asked if I could meet them in Las Vegas (for last year's Comdex computer exposition) where we would finalize my consulting contract and look for other technical partners. I began organizing some research on this by calling several firms who specialized in internet hardware and software. The problem was that this country had a very poor telecommunications infrastructure and these companies only knew how to connect to existing systems. I then called several of the major telecommunications firms and found that they also were not very helpful. These multinational firms were used to doing business with government telecommunications authorities (PTTs) and were not open to doing business with any small companies. The government's PTT, in turn, controlled all land lines and was not open to doing business with anyone other than large telecommunications firms. I came to the conclusion that a satellite link would probably be the only way to establish a new independent ISP in this developing country. I identified several firms who supply these systems using a turn key approach and began to get a rough idea of the costs and technologies involved. My customer agreed with this approach and we decided to continue this line of research when we met at Comdex. Just two days before I was to leave for Las Vegas, the military dictatorship in this country executed a famous and respected author. As a result, the American Embassy became very stingy with visas and my customer was forced to cancel the trip to the United States. They called and said that they considered this to only be a temporary setback and still wanted to do business with me. I decided to go to Comdex anyway to identify firms with this capability and to learn enough about the technology to initiate this project with customer investment funds. I made the trip to Comdex and was shocked that, at this showcase of advanced American technology, I could find almost no one who even understood what I was trying to accomplish. Technology firms apparently are not oriented to doing business in countries where there is no technology infrastructure. After two days of talking to every large computer and networking firm, I was ready to give up. Finally, just a few hours before I had to leave, I met a manager from Hughes Network Systems who was able to provide a conceptually detailed sketch of how to link a VSAT station with customer sites using web servers, comm servers, routers, modems, etc. I took this information home and began working on a technical proposal for my customer. I then realized I was still missing an important piece of the puzzle. Although I now had a pretty good idea of how to set up an internet satellite downlink in Africa I didn't know what to hook it up to. (I later learned that this is called "the last mile problem"). I did some more research and came up with a point to point breakdown of all the components needed to establish a new ISP along with an estimate of costs (using this approach, you wouldn't be forced to do business with a turn key vendor but could put each individual component out to bid). I faxed this to my customer and eagarly awaited the start of my consulting contract. To make a long story short, the deal never happened. It became more difficult to communicate with this customer and the political situation in the country seemed to be disintegrating. There was talk of difficulties with the national telecommunications company. I never found out exactly what happened but after several unreturned phone calls and faxes, I was forced to call it quits with this particular customer. I learned alot from this experience and I would still like to work with this technology. If you are reading this message, you obviously have access to the Internet, but as we all know, many remote areas of the world do not. I think that satellite technology will be the only way to deliver the information revolution to millions of people in the developing world where there is a poor telecommunications infrastructure. I would be very interested in learning if there are other companies or individuals who are considering working with this technology. If possible, I would like to share information on potential customers, technical approaches, regulatory issues, investment strategies and any other issues involving establishing new ISPs in the developing world. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: tmplee@MR.Net (Ted Lee) Subject: Internet-Based Personal Information Services Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:35:07 -0600 Organization: Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet) The last few issues of the RISKS Digest have had a couple of messages pointing out the various directory (white pages, yellow pages, e-mail lists, etc) becoming available on the net/web and rightfully pointing out that people should be aware of how this ought to change their expectations of privacy (regardless of what one feels about the subject.) Does anyone know how the white pages (one of which, by the way, has a national reverse-number-lookup) databases in those services are compiled? The reason I ask is that I was surprised to find a listing for my wife in at least one, but not all, of them and yet she is *not* listed (either separately or as part of my entry) in either our metropolitan (Bell) directory or in the local (GTE or something community directory). I thought perhaps someone here might know. Dr. Theodore M.P. Lee Consultant in Computer Security PO Box 1718 tmplee@MR.Net Minnetonka, MN 55345 612-934-4532 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:38:20 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Florack,Eric) Subject: Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net In response to;rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) in conversation with Nathan Newman , re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net: Ronda, I've been holding off on commenting on this exchange for around a month, now, but your comments, for some reason, pushed me over the edge, as it were. I'm under pressure of time, (meeting in a half-hour) so these comments may come off somewhat disjointed. Sorry about that. > It is helpful that this article demonstrates that the mythology of so > called "competition" is just a veneer for the actuality of unregulated > conglomerates and monopolies trying to impose their view of the world > and their products on an uncooperative public. Huh? Come again? The public buys things of their own will. Do you suppose someone to be holding a gun to their collective heads, saying 'Buy this or else?' > But the more important fact that this all brings to light is that the > Internet was created as a scientific, educational resource. As such > it made possible the public participation needed to develop technology. > I have begun to document this in a new piece of work I am doing > applying Jurgen Habermas's notion of the need for a reemergence of the > public sphere to the development of Usenet and the early ARPANET > mailing lists. Excellent. Someone who is actually researching their topic. While you're there, Rhonda, you might want to look into the federall laws and regulations that would have prevented the private sector from constructing anything resembling the net of today. Any one of the regulars in this digest will be able to spout at length on that subject. Particulalry, look into the artificial propping up of AT&T, which basicly prevented any other firm than AT&T doing anything in the way of long lines ... data or otherwise.. The only reason government was able to set this up as a " scientific, educational resource" is because under that guise, they were not subject to the laws that the private sector was. If a private sector company had attempted what the government did, they'd have been in direct violation of several laws. I suggest in the strongest possible terms that had the burden of federal regulations been lifted, the Internet would be at least 10 years ahead of it's current state, and, since governmental over-regulation in large part has caused our under-development in phone capacity ... we'd not be concerned about telephone capacity problems as a result of internet use, either, because far more would have been built. >> Gingrich promoting decentralization of economic decision-making to >> local regions, there has been a steady stream of conservative analysis >> making the case that new technology has made government's role, >> especially the federal government's role, irrelevant and even >> dangerous to the healthy functioning of the economy. > The development of new technology requires that government play > its crucial role. > My research about Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists in the 1981-2 > period (Usenet was formed in 1979 so this is fairly early in its > development) shows that there were important debates and discussions > on both early Usenet and on the ARPANET mailing lists carried on > Usenet during this period which examined the different views of > technology that the commercial world was promoting and that the > scientific and technical community needed. I agree, government has a crucial role to play. The largest part of that role is staying out of the way. Fact is, government cannot create, only regulate, retard, slow down, or halt something altogether. Government needs other entities to create. Therefore, how can government take the leading role in the creation of anything but regulation, and taxing, ie; slowing down, the progress of anything? Look, you're quite right, so far as you go. Problem is, you're not telling the whole story. Such discussions occurred there, simply because given the over regulation, the overly large role government was playing in the stunting of technological growth of this country, (and thereby the world) it was the only place where such discussions COULD occur ... Hmmm ... Other than, perhaps the technical echoes on FIDO, GT, RYME, and so on. Which brings to mind a side-point; A lot of the technical advances we take for granted came from PRIVATE sources, such as private BBS's. Consider the BBS Ward Christiansen ran in Chicago just a few years ago. (Has it been so long?) Ward, you may recall, was the individual who implimented Xmodem, the protocol that just about all EC serial protos are based on. And let's recall the stink the regulators put up about the private BBS's and their use of the 'public' network, shall we? And why was that stink put up? Because it was out of the government's control, and the government didn't like it. Can you say, "Modem Tax"? Remember? Telco, who knew their meal-ticket was government provided, chimed in, too, claiming they were being shorted, and their capcity is limited ... whicle to this day, they quietly have been selling line after line under special deals specificly for modem use ... and in many cases, Telcos are ISP's themselves ... which exposes the screams of capacity problems for the lies they are ... The issue, is thus exposed as Government's need for control, regardless of the outcome of that control. Do not mistake me, here. I do not intend to imply that there were not many dedicated people involved in the government-based effort.You are correct in giving them the credit they deserve. But can you honestly say that the private sector, once freed, would not have come up with a system that was either similar or better than what we have now? I think they would. Indeed; I *know* they would. Witness; it was only when the private sector was turned loose on the net that it began to really take off. > For example, on the workstation mailing list FA.works there was a > discussion of whether Xerox should offer a programming language with > its new workstation. There was resistance from Xerox for offering a > programming language as that was in conflict with the commercial > control of its product, while those on the mailing list who were to be > the users of the workstation discussed how the lack of a programming > language would make the workstation useless to them. That they would > need to be able to customize their uses of the workstation and not > having a programming language would make their work impossible. > Thru this kind of discussion and debate Xerox was won to recognize > the need to offer a programming language. Are you speaking of the 6085? Look at my address. I happen to know something of that particular unit. I will suggest to you that the processes involved with the design of ANY system is not unlike a governmental process. Somewhat high-handed in nature, and thereby less effective than it might be. Now, the 6085 was a hell of a nice unit. Certainly ahead of it's time. All of the things we take for granted in the GUI's of today, Viewpoint had in the middle 70's, in 4 megs /tops/ of RAM and in under 40 megs of drive space, plus seemless intergal networking.. But it suffered, even during it's heyday, from a prorietary structure, and OS, that even (what I cansider to be) a fairly decent programming language couldn't make sync with the remainder of the world. There's one of them downstairs, in the Museum. To a lesser degree, I suspect, Apple, who basicly swiped the Look and feel of the 8000 and 6085 series workstations for their OS, suffers from the same problem. But, over time, (when law allows it) the public tends to make use of the best ideas, and combine them with other ideas. Witness the operating system I'm willing to bet you're running: WIndows ... the look and feel of which also based largely on the VIEWPOINT OS. The point here being that these choices are made over time by the public, when the government stays out of the way. Would we have done OK, if government had mandated that the VP OS as the way to go? Sure. And, of course it would certainly have made my wallet somewhat fatter. (grin) But would we be as well off? I must be fair and say, I don't think so. Others were free to develop and market their own systems, some of which were better in the overall. As a result we now see Xerox using Microsoft's OS, as opposed to the other way around. Similarly, If government, instead of being more directly involved in development of the internet, had simply lowered the legal barriiers to private concerns to create their own networks, we'd have had a number of systems from which to choose, and, (might I say it) we'd have had a better one when the last one was left standing ... without the designed-in frailties that the one we have now contains. > This is helpfully pointed out in Habermas's work. He shows how in the > development of a political system there is a need to have debate and > discussion over crucial issues and that this is what happened in the > development of our current political forms in England, Germany and > France. (And others have pointed out how this was true as well in the > early days of the U.S.) The debate and discussion over technology is, in the ultimate sense, handled at the cash register. Again, look at the OS's in the grave, or nearly so. VIEWPOINT, for all of it's qualities, is one such. Each person making their own choices. For all the screaming about Microsoft, for example, the bottom line is (pun intended) that Microsoft's operationg systems are more prevelent than those of APPLE, or, UNIX. The latter two clearly have their place, of course ... (Though not much longer for Apple, I think.) > However, Habermas shows how public relations firms have been hired > by big corporate entities to put their narrow self interest out > to the public as the public interest. Yes, indeed. The most recent election cycle is proof of that. Or is it? You under-estimate the longer term thinking ability, I think, of Americans. > The public debate and discussion over public issues is replaced > by public relations ads from corporate entities who propose their > ads as the news. Again, I point at the Presdential elections most recent, as an interesting parallel. The heavy push by the PR firms managed to get a highly questionable person re-elected. Blip! And yet the longer term voting patterns and trends, years in building, have continued in Congress, and on the local level. Understand what I mean here. You're right, in the shorter term. But in the longer term, the PR firm victories are short lived, in reality. Because I give the public credit for being able to see the better path, eventually, (given the chance to make their own choices) people see through the nonsense. Bottom line: Yes, government provided the base for what we now know as the Internet. But the private sector, given the chance by government, (by means of eliminating legal prohibitions, would have provided far better. Regards for the new year to all of you. /E ------------------------------ From: TELECO Digest Editor Subject: Getting in the Last Word: That's All, Folks! Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:30:00 EST So another year and another volume of your favorite Digest (or at least my favorite Digest) comes to an end. For the next few days I am going to be very busy updating the indexes and loading the archives with many new files, etc. Expect to see the Digest resume about the first of next week -- maybe January 5-6 -- with the start of volume 17. I will have a couple special mailings for you in the meantime however. Mark Cuccia has sent along several more files of historical interest, and they are quite large. Watch for them to arrive in your email soon. As a closing note for this year and perhaps an opening note for 1997, a replay of "The Day the Bell System Died" is in order. This originally appeared in TELECOM Digest in July, 1983, when the Digest was two years old and the divestiture of AT&T was well underway. Readers who have been around for a few years have seen this here before; I hope new readers will enjoy it also. Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ---------------------- And that was back in 1983 ... think of how far things have come since then. Lauren is a charter subscriber to this mailing list; he was on the list on opening day in August, 1981 and he remains a regular participant. Please do not forget: TELECOM Digest is brought to you -- by you. The grant from ITU does help with my expenses, but I really very much appreciate the letters and gifts that you send me. There is a suggested donation of twenty dollars per year as the subscription cost for this Digest. No one has ever been cut off for not sending it, and editorial content is completely independent of donations received (or the lack of same.) If you would like to 'subscribe' for another year, and have not recently sent anything, please consider doing so this week. TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL 60076 Your letters *do* mean a great deal to me. Words cannot express how much your donations have helped in the past couple years. Once you get your other bills and pressing matters taken care of, please help this Digest if you can. Happy New Year! We'll chat again in a few days. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #688 ******************************