Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA00505; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:50:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701201350.IAA00505@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #16 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 97 08:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CFP: Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Teleco (M. Karsten) Net Used to Set Up Armed Robberies (Tad Cook) RFD: comp.voicemail (Phil Day) Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (Martin Baines) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Stewart Fist) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Andy Sherman) Re: Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent (C Packer) US FCC Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (Ken Hayward) Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? (Thaddeus Cox) Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? (Bob Keller) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mkarsten@kom.e-technik.th-darmstadt.de (Martin Karsten) Subject: CFP: Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecom Date: 19 Jan 1997 15:15:56 GMT Organization: TH Darmstadt, KOM European Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services (IDMS'97) 10. - 12. September 1997 Darmstadt, Germany In Cooperation with ACM SIGMM Gesellschaft fuer Informatik GMD IEEE Computer Society VDE ITG This Fourth International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services follows the successful IDMS workshop held 1996 in Berlin. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for the presentation, exploration and discussion of technologies and their advancements in the broad field of interactive distributed multimedia systems -- from basic system technologies such as networking and operating system support to all kinds of multimedia applications. Furthermore, we are also looking for work from related areas, including digital library, mobile communication, VR, and software agents. Case studies and papers describing experimental work are especially welcome. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to * High-speed and multimedia networks * ATM networks and applications * Mobile multimedia systems * Multimedia communication protocols * Compression algorithms * Quality of service and media scaling * Resource management * Multimedia operating systems * Synchronization * Multimedia database and storage * Video-on-demand systems, components and architectures * Multimedia programming languages, abstractions & APIs * Development tools for distributed multimedia applications * Multimedia-specific intelligent agents * Multimedia/hypermedia applications and tools, production and authoring * Conferencing * Computer supported collaborative work * Digital libraries * Interactive television * Virtual reality systems IDMS'97 will consist of one day of tutorials and two days of technical presentations in an envisaged single-track. System and tool demonstrations will be possible throughout the workshop. In order to keep the flavor of a "workshop", participation will be restricted to about 100 participants. The proceedings of the workshop will be published in the Springer LNCS series and will be available during the workshop. Selected papers will be forwarded to a special issue of the "Computer Communications" Journal. Information for Authors ======================= The working language of the workshop is English. The submission process of papers will be handled electronically. Detailed description of the electronic submission procedures are available in the IDMS'97 web page http://www.th-darmstadt.de/idms97/ Authors without web access may send mail to idms97@kom.th-darmstadt.de requesting electronic submission information. Authors unable to submit electronically are invited to send 5 copies of their full paper to the program chair: Lars C. Wolf Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Information Technology Darmstadt University of Technology Merckstr. 25, D-64283 Darmstadt, Germany Manuscripts ----------- Submitted manuscripts must describe original work (not submitted or published elsewhere). The manuscripts must be no longer than 5000 words (including references, tables, etc.), be typed double-spaced, contain an abstract of approximately 300 words, and include title, authors and affiliations. The author who serves as contact person must be marked appropriately. Panels ------ Suggestions for panels which present innovative, controversial, or otherwise interesting ideas are welcome. Send a panel proposal of at most 3 pages including a biographical sketch of the panelist to the general chair. Important Dates =============== Submissions due: 01. March 1997 Notification of acceptance: 15. May 1997 Camera-ready version due: 15. June 1997 General Chair ============= Ralf Steinmetz, Darmstadt U., Germany Email: Ralf.Steinmetz@kom.th-darmstadt.de Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology Darmstadt University of Technology Merckstr. 25, D-64283 Darmstadt, Germany Fax: +49 6151 166152 Program Committee ================= B. Butscher, DeTeBerkom, Germany A. Danthine, U. Liege, Belgium L. Delgrossi, Andersen Consulting, France J. Eberspaecher, TU Munich, Germany W. Effelsberg, U. Mannheim, Germany J. Encarnacao, FhG-IGD, Germany D. Ferrari, U. Cattolica, Italy B. Furht, Florida Atlantic U., USA N. Georganas, U. Ottawa, Canada W. Hall, U. Southampton, UK R.G. Herrtwich, RWE, Germany A. Hopper, U. Cambridge / ORL, UK J.P. Hubaux, EPFL, Switzerland D. Hutchison, Lancaster U., UK Y. Ip, Siemens AG, Germany W. Kalfa, TU Chemnitz, Germany T.D.C. Little, Boston U., USA F. Mattern, Darmstadt U., Germany E. Moeller, GMD FOKUS, Germany K. Nahrstedt, U. Illinois, USA E. Neuhold, GMD IPSI, Germany S. Pink, SICS, Sweden R. Popescu-Zeletin, TU Berlin, Germany V. Rangan, U. California, USA K. Rothermel, U. Stuttgart, Germany J. Schweitzer, Siemens AG, Germany H. Tokuda, Keio U., Japan F. Williams, Ericsson, Germany L. Wolf, Darmstadt U., Germany (Chair) General Information =================== For program information contact the Program Chair. For additional information see World-Wide Web: http://www.th-darmstadt.de/idms97 Local Organization ================== For any details on transportation, accomodation, or any other local arrangements please contact Martin Karsten Email: Martin.Karsten@kom.th-darmstadt.de (same address as general chair) ------------------------------ Subject: Net Used to Set Up Armed Robberies Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:45:02 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Police believe internet used to set up robberies BY JANINE DEFAO Scripps-McClatchy Western Service SACRAMENTO -- While computer-savvy cops have seen a fair share of financial fraud and sex crimes perpetrated through the Internet, local investigators now are handling their first case in which victims were lured, online, to an armed robbery. A 17-year-old Bakersfield youth is being held in juvenile hall in San Luis Obispo County, charged with three counts of armed robbery there, and is expected to be arrested this week on suspicion of attempted robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and embezzlement in connection with a December robbery in Elk Grove. Two Elk Grove men, ages 20 and 22, met the youth through electronic mail messages he sent advertising laptop computers at "incredibly unbelievable prices," said task force member Fred Adler, a special agent with the California Department of Justice. The men first wired the suspect $1,000 and then arranged to pay $500 more in the Wal-Mart lot in exchange for a computer valued at $5,000, Landahl said. But when the suspect pulled out a semi-automatic assault pistol, the victims ran, prompting the suspect to shoot at them. No one was hurt. Sacramento investigators said they were on the suspect's trail when they learned of a youth in custody on suspicion of a similar crime in Paso Robles. On Dec. 16, three 17-year-olds were robbed at gunpoint of $327 and their driver's licenses after responding to an online advertisement for stereo equipment, said Paso Robles Police Detective Butch Cantalupo. Two suspects, impersonating FBI agents, took the teens' money and told them they would be charged with attempting to buy stolen property. With help from the real FBI, Paso Robles police were able to trace a pager number to the Bakersfield teen. They also arrested a 17-year-old female. Sacramento detectives have identified, but not caught, a second suspect in the Elk Grove crime and believe there may be other conspirators. "Due to the fact they were using the Internet, I thought (the crime) was pretty sophisticated. They know more about computers than I do," Cantalupo said. But Adler said the suspect's computer knowledge did not extend far beyond knowing how to use electronic mail, standard fare for many teens. "Any 17-year-old could have done this," he said. While the suspect did use several fictitious e-mail accounts, he showed more determination than sophistication in his willingness to drive as far as Sacramento, some five hours from his home, to commit a $500 crime, Landahl said. "I think he probably felt he was safer doing things away from the area where he lived," said Landahl, adding that a suspect's moving throughout several areas can make it more difficult to piece together a crime series. Little background was available on the teen, whose name was not released because he is a juvenile. Bakersfield police said the youth lives in a middle-class neighborhood in a modest home, and Sacramento investigators said there are indications he may have been involved in street gangs and had a fascination with guns. Adler also said an examination of the suspect's computer, seized with a search warrant, shows that he also may have engaged in mail fraud as far away as Pennsylvania. Detectives are continuing to investigate and said they may forward evidence to other jurisdictions in which crimes may have been committed. They also are convinced that there are many more victims out there, some of whom may be afraid to report the rip-offs because they had an idea that at such low prices, the goods they planned to buy must have been stolen. Landahl said investigators are seeking other victims, none of whom will face any charges. Detectives also said that consumers must protect themselves from such crimes as online advertising becomes more popular. "If a deal sounds too good to be true, it usually is. The old adage holds true, especially on the Internet," Adler said. Landahl said buyers need to "be extremely careful. "Check out as best you can who and what you're dealing with," he said. "If you're going to meet a person to exchange goods, I would do it in a very public place during normal business hours when people are around ... Make it right next to the front door." ------------------------------ From: Phil Day Subject: RFD: comp.voicemail Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:37:21 GMT RFD for unmoderated group: comp.voicemail Summary: comp.voicemail General information for voice mail and voice processing technologies. Technical and user support for voice mail systems. Technical discussion and information on voice mail hardware and software technology. Latest developments and news on voice mail and voice processing technologies will be discussed and announced. RATIONALE: Voice mail and similar systems are becoming more and more common and will continue to do so. To ensure that the technology is developed with both the end user of such systems in mind and benefits from a wider development view the proposed news group will provide a forum for this purpose. Support for end users of systems will be provided as well as support for hardware and software developers. CHARTER: comp.voicemail will be an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion and sharing of information involved in the development and manufacture of voice processing systems and provide a platform for support issues. Advertising: Short (less than 20 line) announcements of events relevant to readers are permitted; blatant off-topic or commercial advertising is not. Binaries: Binaries are permitted on this group. Moderated: This group will not be moderated. Proponent: Phil Day Phil Day - ASI - autoVOICE Phil.Day@autovoice.com http://www.autovoice.com ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines Subject: Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:26:00 +0000 Organization: Silicon Graphics Nils Andersson wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> None of the later entrants on the scene wanted any >> competition; they just wanted to rip off what they could from the >> network and they convinced the government to help them do it. PAT] > Actually, that is not what happened. As in any partially regulated > market, the typical plea to the government from any given company was > to open up for more competion in the areas to which it did not have > good access, but to disallow more competion in the areas where they > already did. (The most laughable example was when at roughly the same > time, the LD operatore argued FOR opening the local markets - > intra-LATA - to competion, but AGAINST opening the long-distance > market to local telcos, while the RBOCs took the opposite view, on > both items.) This is self-serving and in many cases disingeneous, but > also very predictable. Another example of this hypocrisy was what the RBOCs did in the UK. Whilst in the US arguing vigorously against the introduction of competition into the local loop, and trying to keep Cable Cos out of the phone business, they were buying UK cable/phone francises and getting into the business of local loop competition! Of course the regulation in the UK is a bit different from the US: the only way you can compete in the local loop is if you build your own network. There is no requirement for an established telco to unbundle to the level of leasing out local loop circuits. Similarly, AT&T was arguing against the BT/MCI merger on the grounds the UK market was not as open as the US - despite AT&T having a licence to operate in the UK, and no foreign owned telco having a licence to operate in the US. It seems the obligation for companies "to maximise shareholder value" sometimes makes them act pretty inconsistently. :-) Martin Baines - Telecommunications Market Consultant Silicon Graphics, Arlington Business Park, Reading, RG7 4SB, UK email: martinb@reading.sgi.com SGI vmail: 6-788-7842 phone: +44 118 925 7842 fax: +44 118 925 7545 URL: http://reality.sgi.com/martinb_reading/ Silicon Surf: http://www.sgi.com/International/UK/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:55:44 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Nils Andersson writes: > At some point in the early eighties, ITT started an effort to develop > digital switches. They hired away a bunch of talent from AT&T at a > substantial premium, set up the lab with tight security and developed > away. > I am not sure how technically successful they were, but the marketing > effort that was carried out in parallel flopped, the Norwegian Govt > Telco was the only significant customer. I may be mis-remembering, but I think that switch is now called the Alcatel System 12, or is it the other one they sell? Either way, it has been one of the most successful exchange switches in the world over the last few decades. Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:52:03 -0500 Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. > Does the second 'T' in AT&T still have meaning in this age? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in > ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread > among other things? How long has it been since International > Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] Actually, none of the letters in AT&T have any meaning any more. The name of the company was officially changed to 'AT&T Corporation' a few years back. I think there was some hoo-ha at around the same time about the disconnection of AT&T's last telegraph line. Anybody remember the details? Andy Sherman 101 Hudson St, Jersey City NJ, 28th flr VP, Business Continuity (201) 524-5460 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com ------------------------------ From: packer@cais.cais.com (Charles Packer) Subject: Re: Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent Date: 20 Jan 1997 03:22:01 GMT Organization: Sent via CAIS Internet In article , George Beuselinck wrote: > 'A technical problem on the Skytel paging network led to a nationwide > bout of beeper madness, as a digital deluge of erroneous call-me-back > messages swept over more than 100,000 unwitting pager customers' ... and the explanation given by Mr. Beuselinck was more coherent than that given by a Reuters story I saw, but still leaves questions. What was the initial event? I'm guessing it was the transmission of the PIN to the customers as an apparent phone number, and that this was human error. How was the positive feedback loop initiated? It would seem that it was done by the "three dozen" customers who recognized the number as a PIN. They were able to broadcast over the Skytel system by using the PIN as such, either unwittingly or through some privilege they had as subscribers to the news service. What they broadcast, if I understand Mr. Beuselinck correctly, was their own phone numbers. ========== http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html ========= ========== Nine days of news at a glance ========= ------------------------------ From: Ken Hayward Subject: US FCC Network Reliability & Interoperability Council Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:31:50 -0500 Organization: Nortel The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States government is currently asking for user and industry input into, inter alia, the question of public network to user reliability and interoperability. One topic included in that is High Speed to Users, which includes ATM, for which I am a co-author. Our focus is _engineering/technical_ issues and recommendations for processes to avoid them, _not_ public policy or regulatory. I'd like to give this opportunity for all interested readers to comment on this topic, whether you are resident in the U.S. or not. A web site is available to obtain more information, and responses can be emailed to me as indicated below. The email addresses of additional participants on other user-network interface issues is also available through the web sites. We are not regular readers of this news group. Responses on technical issues directed to this group are not likely to influence our report. However, I do plan to monitor the group for one week from 97/1/16 in case clarification of this message is required. Please note that we are currently in very early investigation, and that the opinions on the site do not yet reflect any consensus. Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/nric/ gives the charter, and links to: Focus Group 1: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/ Issues Database: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/database/ User Interop: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/database/taskgrp4/ Ken.Hayward@nortel.ca fax +1 613 795 6719 Northern Telecom, MS 85 P. O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4H7 Ken.Hayward@Nortel.ca +1 613 723 4912 fax +1 613 723 4120 P. O. Box 5080, Station F, Nepean, ON, K2C 3T1, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:04:59 PST From: Thaddeus Cox Subject: Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Chris Ziomkowski wrote: > I live in a rural community in the mountains of Southern California. > For three years I have been after our local telco for ISDN, who has > continually told me they don't offer it in this area. (They used to > be Contel, however recently they merged and became GTE.) Suddenly, > we were chosen as the site for the 1997 winter X Games, and ESPN > requested ISDN service in the area. > After speaking with a GTE engineer, I was informed that yes, they are > in fact installing ISDN for ESPN, but that they had to take heroic > efforts by pulling it on a T1 from an office 20 miles away, and that > it wasn't available to the general public. I'm a student at the Oregon Institute of Technology, and our school is located in Klamath Falls, a rural community in the mountains of Southern Oregon. The LEC is USWest, and the switch here is a (non-ISDN capable) 1AESS. Our school uses ISDN for videoconferencing and such. The way USWest accomodated our needs was to 'backhaul' our connection for around 180 miles over leased circuits from the nearest ISDN-capable switch (in Eugene). Our school pays quite a bit for those leased lines, and I'm sure that ESPN is shelling out for it's ISDN too. If you volunteered to lease a circuit to that CO 20 miles away, GTE might be more interested in talking to you. :) The point is, they *can* offer ISDN in that area, but but not for the tariffed rate, since giving someone in your area ISDN necessitates providing a full-time leased circuit from that customer to the nearest 5ESS or DMS100. That would be the equivalent of buying a foreign exchange line from that ISDN-capable town. Then again, if GTE actually pulled new fiber just for ESPN (as opposed to leasing them existing circuits), after the games they might have some surplus capacity to sell you. :) Thaddeus Cox coxt@mail.oit.osshe.edu tadc@europa.com Oregon Institute of (no, it's not a 2 year program) Technology ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:43:22 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? In issue 13, Chris Ziomkowski asked: "Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service?" to which the TELECOM Digest Editor responded: > To answer your question based merely > on the title of your article, the answer is NO ... I would say the answer is an unequivocal IT DEPENDS. Most state utility codes have a provision similar to Section 202 of the Federal Communications Act which provides, in part: "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination ... in connection with like communication service ..." So before the discrimination may be deemed unlawful it must be (a) unreasonable, and (b) with respect to *like* services. I'd be willing to bet GTE shouldered a good chunk (if not all) of cost of those > heroic efforts by pulling it on a T1 from an office 20 miles away and on that basis alone the discrimination might not be deemed unreasonable. As an example, if Bill Gates pays $2,500 for a ticket on the Concord, I really can't call it "unreasonable" discrimination if they refuse to sell me a ticket for $250. They are discriminating in favor of those who can afford the service, which is the way life works (except in the imaginations of socialists). If it can be demonstrated that GTE paid no more for this service than would be charged for residential service, that might raise a serious question as to reasonableness. But I seriously doubt that is the case. But there is also the question of whether the services are "like". There is quite a big difference between (a) pulling in a T1 from an office 20 miles away to be used for a single event of limited duration, and (b) tooling up for residential ISDN service on a regular, continuing basis. As Pat also points out later in his comment, GTE probably filed a special tariff to cover this unique situation. > Telco is required by law to provide its services to all qualified > applicants. True, but this actually goes beyond discrimination. This goes to the question of whether I can make the telco provide me with a service whether or not they are providing it to anyone else. Again, most state utility laws have something similar to another Communications Act provision, Section 201, which states, in part: "It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor ..." A telco could violate that provision even without discriminating. But this raises an interesting question. If I was certified to provide POTS, does that perforce mean I must start providing ISDN when technology changes? And if that is what it means, where are we going to draw the line? Will the telco (subject to technical capability and my ability and willingness to pay) be obligated to provide any type of service I can dream up? Section 214(d) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to, "after full opportunity for hearing, ... order any carrier ... to provide itself with adequate facilities for the expeditious and efficient performance of its service as a common carrier and to extend its line or to establish a public office; but no such authorization or order shall be made unless the Commission finds, as to such provision of facilities, as to such establishment of public offices, or as to such extension, that it is reasonably required in the interest of public convenience and necessity, or as to such extension or facilities that the expense involved therein will not impair the ability of the carrier to perform its duty to the public." Again, I think there is a good chance that California's utility code has a similar provision. IMO, these provisions only make sense to the extent the carrier is a monopoly provider, which is getting to be more difficult determination to make these days. Carriers may retain monopoly power as to some services and/or some service areas, while facing bona fide competition as to others. I'm not sure the Telecom Act of 96 has done all the surgery on Title II that might be prudent if competition in local exchange service truly takes hold and becomes as commonplace and widespread as it is today in long distance. There are problems of both service type and service geography; i.e., are we going to require the existing LEC's to continue to provide services or to serve areas, while allowing new entrant's to be selective? Some of the problems in this regard will hopefully be adequately addressed in the Universal Service proceedings -- but this *is* the government, after all, so I'm not going to hold my breath until they get it right. Bob Keller (KY3R) mailto:rjk@telcomlaw.com http://www.his.com/~rjk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #16 *****************************