Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA12223; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:05:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:05:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701131405.JAA12223@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #10 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Incredible Cultural Demand For More Phone Lines (Tad Cook) New Area Code Plans For 817 (Billy Newsom) New Monopoly Bottleneck (Unbundled Ports and AIN Triggers) (Marty Tennant) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (Shawn Barnhart) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (John R. Levine) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Dave Keeny) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Chris Mathews) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (R. Van Valkenburgh) Re: MCI Bait-and-Switch Beware (Guy J. Sherr) Re: Telephone Fraud in Tulsa (Linc Madison) Re: JPEG File Formats Question (Stan Brown) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Incredible Cultural Demand For More Phone Lines Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:27:21 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Demand for Lines Spurs Pacific Bell Hiring By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 11--Pacific Bell disclosed Friday it plans to hire 2,500 new employees this year as it attempts to meet a startling expansion in demand for new telephone lines, Internet connections and storm repairs. Pac Bell conceded it has suffered service problems in line installations and repairs. The company blamed the service deterioration on the unprecedented demand for phone lines, combined with repairs required by recent storms and floods. The company's move to add thousands of employees comes on the heels of Pac Bell's hiring of 4,500 workers in 1996, the most in 20 years. Currently, the phone company is looking for service representatives, technicians, support staff to handle orders and people to install phone lines. "There is an incredible cultural demand that has developed for additional phone lines," said John Britton, a Pacific Bell spokesman, referring to society's growing need to be in touch. During the first nine months of 1996, Pacific Bell installed 553,000 new phone lines, a record amount. Among people who want an additional phone line in their home, nearly half want the connections to set up home offices. The backup has been so great that Pac Bell has been forced to set up a triage to prioritize which orders will be filled first: - The top priority is customers who have no service. - The second priority is customers with line static or other related problems, but who still have phone service. - The third priority is those who currently have service but want additional phone lines. "If it's an additional line, those people have to go lower in the pecking order," Britton said. Until it can hire new employees, Pac Bell has been forced to import employees from other states and countries. Pac Bell has begun to borrow workers from telecommunications companies in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Canada. The company expects to have to borrow 250 to 300 employees in the next few months. About 80 workers have already arrived and are installing lines, making repairs and undertaking construction work in the Bay Area. "I've heard we may borrow people for three months or longer," Britton said. The East Bay is adding phone numbers and prefixes at such a rapid rate that Pacific Bell has decided to add a new area code to the region in 1998. The phone company apparently doesn't expect the demand to ease any time soon. "While storms are seasonal, the skyrocketing demand for new telecommunications has become a more permanent trend," Pac Bell said in a statement. ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: New Area Code Plans For 817 Date: 12 Jan 1997 16:49:21 GMT Organization: The Why? Network You didn't here it from me, but a certain Southwestern Bell bird told me that 817 will split in June 1997. This area code contains Fort Worth, Denton, Waco, and a good portion of North Texas. Sorry, Waco, but Fort Worth will keep 817, everyone else will change. This comes after 214/972 split the Dallas area only last September. There are still no final plans yet. First off, the Texas PUC rejected the initial 214/972 idea, and it had to be redone at the last minute. So the PUC may be picky again. But hopefully, SWBT has learned their lesson for 817. Second, there's still a debate as to how many area codes to make. There's rumors that there may be two new area codes, since the resultant area (minus Fort Worth) would end up doughnut- or horseshoe- shaped and would probably need another split in a few years, anyway. My guess is that the southern region will get one, and the northern/ western region will get another. Who knows? All I know is that the 214/972 split was a huge fiasco, given many people didn't know about it until two weeks before -- and that my PBX can't take much more of this. When I know more, I'll pass it along. Billy Newsom :^p uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ nO nEED tO yELL! The only site on the Internet devoted exclusively to motherboards ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:21:03 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: Low Tech Designs, Inc. Subject: New Monopoly Bottleneck (Unbundled Ports and AIN Triggers) Beware of a new monopoly being created unless the FCC gets their 91-346 Intelligent Network docket right. Unbundled central office switching ports have recently been ruled, by the FCC and State Commissions, as having all the features and functions available on the switch included. This includes all custom calling features such as three way calling, automatic call return, call waiting, etc. The Bells hate this interpretation, but it appears to have stuck. In several State decisions, I have seen this extended to Advanced Intelligent Network triggers. In other word, if you provide dialtone via an unbundled port, you get ALL AIN triggers to use, and only you get to provide future services on those triggers. The FCC, in their 91-346 Intelligent Network Docket, said that they wanted the Advanced Intelligent Network to represent the "telephony equivalent of an open IBM PC programming platform", for the creation of new call processing capabilities. If this is the case, then the platform access point relies upon the AIN triggers that are contained in the central office software. If MCI, or AT&T or NYNEX own the triggers, then you will buy your AIN applications only from them. Is this the "telephony equivalent of an open IBM PC programming platform"? I don't believe that enough people are aware of the possibility, unless the FCC rules otherwise in their upcoming closeout of the 91-346 docket, that a new monopoly bottleneck is in danger of being created. This time, as we crack the monopoly on telephony hardware, we will be creating a new software monopoly. Where is the EFF and the Consumer Federation of America and others on this issue? Are you guys asleep at the wheel on this or what? If the impact of this isn't alarming to you, maybe I haven't explained it enough, or people don't understand AIN. Both are possible. Please ask questions if you don't get the critical message I am relaying here. I am sending this to several list and individuals, and encourage cross posting to others. marty tennant low tech designs, inc. ------------------------------ From: swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:55:21 -0600 Organization: Chaos Lawrence V. Cipriani wrote: > I'm not going to be very popular with my reply. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. Sure, there's no disputing that. But will they be opening their offices up for independent data collection? Opening their engineering and planning records to revue capacity planning and investment for the last twenty years? Those are the facts that need examining. > However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond > to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to > want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. > However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask > themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own > computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the > phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? The question I have is, where have the RBOCs BEEN? It's not like the modem was invented last week and that people just *all of the sudden* started calling BBSs, ISPs, etc destroying their precious switch and trunk capacity. Modems and BBSs have been around for more than ten years, and I don't think that the usage patterns have changed that much -- I can remember swapping software over the modem (120k @ 30 cps ~ 68 mins), staying online with a BBS for an hour and then going to another BBS for another hour, or staying online for hours (sometimes all weekend!) with a timesharing system. I know I wasn't the only one with these habits then, and I'm sure it wasn't a local phenomenon. I have a suspicion that management at RBOCs have been asleep at the wheel and have not been doing much proactive planning in their core business. They've all been real interested in cable TV (and content for it) and other things NOT part of providing telephone service. Suddenly they may have a capacity problem and they want someone else to pay the price. I don't think that I should have to pay the price -- I think the stockholders should. They're responsible for RBOC management, and RBOC management is the source of this problem. Shawn Barnhart swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 06:21:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. > However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond > to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to > want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. > However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask > themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own > computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the > phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? Who says they should? Remember price caps? The theory was that the PUC set prices, the telco got to keep the difference if they could cut their costs. But wait, what if the telcos guessed wrong and the costs don't go down? Well, in that case the telcos go back whining to the PUCs with stories ranging from numerically implausible to outright lies*, while at the same time running advertising campaigns to encourage people to sign up for second lines for modems. If the telcos ever presented numbers for modem use that were on the same planet as financial reality, they'd get a lot more sympathy here. As it is, they're only accelerating the day when everyone other than the little old lady POTS customers will run away to bypass and CAPs who act like they actually want the business. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be * - Viz the PacTel press release about "calls that didn't complete" implying switch meltdown but which in fact was people calling Netcom and getting busy signals. ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:11:25 +0500 Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation Reply-To: keenyd@ttc.com Torsten Lif wrote: [big snip] > Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if > you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are [snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell > them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform > the other party that you are going to record it. They really do not [snip] Pat, Federal law allows telephone conversations to be taped as long as at least one of the participants agrees to it -- this allows you to record your own conversations; however, state laws may differ and the legality is not always clearcut ... >From http://www.cpsr.org/dox/factshts/wiretapping.html : > California law does not allow tape recording of telephone calls > unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal > Code section 632), or they are notified of the recording > by a distinct "beep tone" warning (California Public Utilities > Commission General Order 107-B). Federal law, however, is less > restrictive. It requires only one party to a conversation to > agree to tape record a call for the recording to be legal (18 USC > section 2511(d)). It is not always clear which law, state or federal, > applies to specific situations. This determination depends on where > the call originates, why the recording is being made and who places > the call. To stay within the law, you may wish to refrain from taping > calls you make, but be aware that in certain situations others may > be recording your conversations with them. The referenced page deals specifically with California, but the same issues might apply in other states. If a person didn't know the state laws, I suppose he could go ahead and record the conversation clandestinely, and then look into the legality of it later, if it were needed in court. Not that I'm recommending that, but it's an option. Those interested in the laws of their own state regarding taped phone conversations may want to visit the following: http://www.rcfp.org/1stamend/1a_c1p1.html Addresses first amendment issues, and lists states that require all parties to be notified of the recording ("two-party" states). http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html State-by-state listing of one party vs. two party notification requirements and footnotes for many states discussing details of those states' laws. Dave ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1997 12:34:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Organization: RSE Moss-Jusefowytsch OEG > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell > them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform > the other party that you are going to record it.... I'm not a lawyer, blah, blah, blah, but in the state of Arizona it is legal to record a phone conversation as long as just one of the two parties is aware. Therefore in AZ it is OK to record your phone conversations without informing the other person. Chris Mathews ------------------------------ From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:02:43 GMT Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net Torsten Lif wrote: > Fine, we accepted MCI. But when the paperwork arrived, I found that > the prices were a 6-month promotional and would double after that > date. Annoyed, I called and they denied any responsibilty - "the sales > person was not authorized to make those promises - Sorry". > Then, AT&T called [clip] > " I protested that their sales person had specifically said the > rates came without any expiry date. "Sorry, Sir. The sales person was > not authorized to make those promises." Sound familiar? > Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if > you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are > called in record the conversations in some "safe" manner? Could I > insist on having the salescritter repeat the offer for the recording > and then really hold the company to it? As Pat mentions, there can be problems with recording telephone conversations without the other party being informed. But one other are where the telco's have us beat is with regards to tariffs. If a telco rep promises you a great rate that happens to exceed legal tariffs, the telco MUST ignore the rep's "mistake" and charge the legal (tariffed) rates. There would be nohting you could do, unless you could prove it to be intentional (fraud). If you believe you can prove fraud, then by a means do it! But keep in mind that it will cost you a fortune in court (money and/or time) to litigate. Best of luck. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is quite true. The tariff always prevails. Regardless of what anyone says at telco which happens to be in error, the rules to follow are the ones written into the tariff. Maybe you can prove the employee deliberatly misinformed you in order to get you to sign up, but that will be hard to do. MCI/AT&T/Sprint will just tell you their employees are ignorant and do not know any better than what they chatter about on the phone. You prove otherwise. Good luck if you can. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:24:15 -0600 From: Guy J. Sherr Organization: Engineering Subject: Re: MCI Bait-and-Switch Beware I must differ with you here. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...{of a solicitation call} You must by > law inform the other party that you are going to record it. I am not an attorney or a lawyer, but I love a good argument; so bearing in mind that I am quite probably wrong, now do I plunge headlong into the fray. You can record anything you hear on the phone provided you either placed that call, or were among the receivers of that call. All of the people on a phone call have the same rights to privacy from eavesdropping, but they no rights to privacy beyond their conversation with ONE ANOTHER. Even when a person says "don't tell anybody, but ...," you are not bound by rule of law to keep that confidence (unless you are within the limits of a handful of special relationships that have the protection of Legal Confidence). These rights stem from your ability to literally transcribe the content of any conversation without any other party's knowledge or permission. Even if you don't use a phone, go home, and wait until dark, you can still legally write down everything I said to you and even testify to that effect later. Further, the phone company cannot interfere with your transciption unless they want to be AS RESPONSIBLE for the contents as any other party to the conversation. Regards, guy ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Telephone Fraud in Tulsa Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:35:25 -0800 In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote: > Tulsa, Okla., Sees Rise in Incidence Telephone Fraud > By Becky Tiernan, Tulsa World, Okla. > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News > Jan. 3--Two popular telephone scams have made their way to Tulsa. > [ ... ] > In a scam that hits people on a personal basis, con artists send > urgent messages to people via fax, e-mail and pager. The message > includes a phone number. That phone number, in reality, is a 900 > number somewhere in the Caribbean. > "The real problem with this scam is the cost of the call -- about > $25," said Garrett. "Unless you recognize the number on your bill, you > may never know they got you." > Beware of these area codes: 242, 246, 268, 345, 441, 664, 670, 758, > 767, 787, 868, 869 or 876. "If you see a number that you don't > recognize, on your pager or that comes over your fax, ignore it," said > Garrett. More horrendously sloppy reportage. These are not "900" numbers in the Caribbean. They are ordinary numbers in the Caribbean area codes shown. In order to get the charge to $25, they'd need to hold you on the line for about 20 minutes. Reports of Caribbean numbers with surcharges over and above the normal charges for calls to that country, are nothing more than URBAN LEGEND. If you believe you know of a case that is real, please supply the SPECIFIC DETAILS, not just "Oh, I know someone whose cousin's company got hit." At the very least, we need to know the area code and prefix of the supposedly surcharged number. If you dial an ordinary number that is call-forwarded to a 900 number, you will pay only the ordinary toll charge to the number that YOU dialed. The cost of the 900 number will be borne by the person who ordered the forwarding. However, the advice about ignoring (or at least checking on) any unfamiliar numbers on your pager, or that you are solicited to call by some other means, is right on target. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best. com ------------------------------ From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: JPEG File Formats Question Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:50:55 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net Thus spake fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) in : > I want to look into some .JPG files on the web and deconstruct them. > Can anyone point me to a good tutorial on JPEG and the source of the > file format definition? This may be of some help. According to the help file for LView Pro, try ftp://ftp.uu.net, directory /graphics jpeg. Here's the quote: "Free, portable C code for JPEG compression is available from the Independent JPEG Group, ... A package containing our source code, documentation, and some small test files is available from ftp.uu.net (192.48.96.9) in directory /graphics/jpeg. The current release is v4, file jpegsrc.v4.tar.Z. (This is a compressed TAR file; don't forget to retrieve in binary mode.) You can retrieve this file by FTP or UUCP. Copies can also be found at many other Internet sites. If you are on a PC and don't know how to cope with .tar.Z format, you may prefer ZIP format, which you can find at Simtel20 and mirror sites (see NOTE above), file msdos/graphics/jpegsrc4.zip. This file is also available on CompuServe, in the GRAPHSUPPORT forum (GO PICS), library 15, as jpsrc4.zip. If you have no FTP access, you can retrieve the source from your nearest comp.sources.misc archive; version 4 appeared as issues 55- 72 of volume 34." Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #10 *****************************