Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA20335; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 00:45:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705050445.AAA20335@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 May 97 00:45:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Nils Andersson) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Stanley Cline) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Michael Schuster) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Andrew Moore) Re: Fiber/Copper Breakout or SLC? (Patton Turner) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Scott Nelson) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Michael Kagalenko) Re: Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID (Andy McFadden) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (John R. Levine) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (nwdirect@netcom.com) Re: Carte Blanche to Steal (John Cropper) Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging? (Michael W. Coen) Last Laugh! How Many??? (Jim Weiss) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* 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: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 04 May 1997 17:28:48 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > OK, now that we've had a good laugh, let's get serious! Can you > imagine the statue not having the authority to prevent implementation > of a deceptive trade practice? I would think this is easy -- compare > the consumer's intent in saying "I don't care" to the outcome if these > folks prevail. They are not the same, unless to add to the carrier > selection script "Do you mean 'I Don't Care' long distance service > from Scumbag Communications or do you mean that you don't care who > your carrier is?" I am not sure if it is deceptive. If somebody truly does not care, then he should be happy with whatever he gets. (On a lighter note, there is a possibly apocryphal story about a Nevada man who picked a vanity license plate number of NONE. His punishment was being mailed 358 notices about unpaid parking tickets. The rest of the story is left as an exercise.) Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 19:34:09 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On 27 Apr 1997 08:40:34 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Andy Sherman wrote: > Did anybody else hear about this? I heard it as one of those Old news. *I* mentioned Dennis Dees' antics several months back. > It seems some relatively small LD carrier has applied to do business > in Florida under the trade names of "I Don't Care" and "It Doesn't > Matter". Presumably, if a subscriber gave either of those answers to > a LEC carrier selection request then Scumbag Communications (or The intent was to grab calls dialed to the LEC operator, where the caller answered "I don't know|care" for the name of the LD carrier to handle interLATA calls. I certainly don't think he'd try to take 1+ traffic -- that could be considered a form of slamming, IMHO. > Anybody heard what the final PSC action was on this? In Georgia, from what I understand, he dropped his application ... I don't think the current PSC would allow it. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 4 May 1997 21:25:56 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) wrote: > I once head a person shanged his name to "None of the Above". He then > ran for political office. On the ballot, his name appeared ... Actually, it was "Absolutely Nobody" and he run for Lt. Governor of some state, I seem to remember Washington. hpa Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 04 May 1997 19:03:29 -0400 In article , Andy Sherman wrote: > Did anybody else hear about this? I heard it as one of those > whimsical little pieces on the half-hour on NPR's Morning Edition a > couple weeks ago. That's almost as good as the company calling itself ATNT, who called AT&T subscribers to "confirm they wanted ATNT as their long distance carrier". Right. Mike Schuster | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@panix.com | schuster@mem.po.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Moore Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 11:58:58 -0400 Organization: Cornell University Hi there - I got wind of this a few months ago and I think I have the access codes to dial them direct -- I think they came off of alt.phreaking or somewhere and I haven't tried them, so you may get mixed results. I believe it goes like this: 1015016 - KT&T - owns the following: 1015136 - "I don't know" 1015137 - "It doesn't matter" 1015138 - "Whoever" 1015140 - "Anyone is OK" It sounds pretty weird to me too. Andrew Moore (remove the NOSPAM, unless spamming) ------------------------------ From: pmturner@mindspring.com (Patton Turner) Subject: Re: Fiber/Copper Breakout or SLC? Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 22:50:01 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: pmturner@mindspring.com Pat Talbot wrote: > I am extending a network to a building about a quarter of a mile away > from my central facility via arial fiber (12 strand). I'm looking for > a box that will let me convert 50 or 100 copper pairs down to a single > fiber pair, and then convert back from fiber to the 50 or 100 copper > pairs on the far end. Does a SLC provide this functionality? > At the central site, we have a large PBX and would like to connect > phones at the far end using the above scenario. The far end currently > has a separate key system phone switch that I would like to eliminate > from our midst. :) A SLC (non I-SLCs at least) are designed to have a CO (COT) and a field end (ROT) and are customised for that application. It would work for your application, but plain D4 channel banks might be cheaper, and a bit more flexable. I would price the two methods. If you aren't going to need some multiple of 96 channels, I'll bet the D4s are cheaper. Pat ------------------------------ From: scott_d_nelson@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Scott Nelson) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1997 13:36:32 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) wrote: > According to Dr Alan Harris from the Walter and Eliza Institute in > Melbourne: "This is important because at present, there was no convincing > evidence that radio fields (in contrast to X- and Gamma-rays, ultraviolet > and atomic radiation) can directly cause the changes in genes responsible > for cancer development." Thanks for the post, Stewart. I just wanted to focus on the above quote that I stripped from your article. As I understand it, medical scientists and physicists both agree on how high frequency radiation such as X- and Gamma-rays can have genetic affects, but I have seen no hypothesis on how low-frequency RF might affect biology. I am told that the general theoretical concensus is that low frequency RF only serves to manipulate cells *physically*. That is to say that they can cause physical movement or excitation of matter which -- as far as we know -- only results in the generation of heat. In other words, wireless communication could possibly fry your brain, but it won't cause cancer. Still, the energy required to do any significant physical damage like a microwave oven is way, way more than any wireless transmitter that cellular/PCS/GSM phone users would come in contact with -- including wireless base stations. Note that I prefixed some of my comments with "as I understand...", "I have seen...", and "I am told...". I in no way claim to be an authority here, so I would appreciate being corrected or supported. If there is any sound hypothisis to the contrary regarding low-frequency RF causing genetic mutation, I would like to hear of it. And, knowing how newsgroups can spawn more missinformation from rumor rather than fact, I would like to see solid references on any sources quoted. (In this regard, I commend you on your article.) *Scott Nelson work: scott_d_nelson@aud.alcatel.com* *Alcatel Network Systems home: nelson84@concentric.net* *Richardson, Texas phone: 972-996-5890 fax: 972-996-2778* ------------------------------ From: Michael Kagalenko Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 23:49:34 EDT Stewart Fist (fist@ozemail.com.au) wrote in article > This gets very little coverage in TELECOM Digest, for good > reason. Most of the studies are inconclusive. Not all, however. > This, I predict, is one of the most significant yet. > Cell phones/cancer connection. > by Stewart Fist > The Australian newspaper, Tues 29 April 1997 > A team of scientists funded by Telstra to investigate claimed links > between cellular phones and cancer has turned up probably the most > significant finding of an adverse health effects yet. > When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was > rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic". Three > other prominent magazines including 'Nature' also later rejected the > report, suggesting that they would not handle such important > conclusions without the research being further confirmed. This makes me a bit suspicious about the claims by S. Fist. As far as I am familiar with "Science" and "Nature," poor science is more likely reason for rejection then controversial nature of findings. Were those results published in any peer-reviewed journals? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Stewart Fist noted originally that 'very little coverage of the topic appears in TELECOM Digest' and the reason for that is I tend to toss out the articles on 'cancer caused by cell phones' without publishing them ... usually that is. The topic has come up here in the past, and each time around the consensus of several writers who really should know what they are talking about has been that this 'cancer' is hogwash. It is indeed a controversial topic and there are a number of people who beleive it to be true. I don't think I beleive it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) Subject: Re: Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID Organization: Lipless Rattling Crankbait Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:56:49 GMT In article , Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: > In article Dave Yewell > writes: >> "dial 10 digits" which I assume are the ten digits which CID delivers >> and "dial 1+10 digits" >> Isn't all 10 digit dialing in the US "1+10"? The database we get from CCMI includes dialing pattern information, with separate entries for HL (home area code, local), HT (home, toll), FL (foreign area code, local), and FT (foreign, toll). There's one set for "allowed" dialing, and a second set for "permissive" dialing (well, PFT is assumed to be 1+10 everywhere). The database assigns single-letter codes to each exchange, where each letter represents a different combination of values. The current DB has 17 different sets. There are places where you are *required* to dial seven-digit numbers into different area codes. There's not much about dialing that I would call "standard" in the U.S. FWIW, I believe there was an exchange in Cananda that "went M" before Maryland did, but MD was the first in the U.S. to do so. The unpleasantly fascinating part is that there are places in the country where you get charged more for dialing 1+10 than you would for dialing seven, even though both connect you to the same place. So being able to dial fewer than 11 digits is an important feature for some areas. > As of Thursday most of the state of Maryland will be 10 digit dialing > for *all* local calls and 1+10 digit dialing for toll. Seven digit > dialing will no longer be permitted due to the pending start of area > code overlays. I assume that this box is designed with this feature > so it will work in MD too. > A side note, Bell Atlantic has been running a big media blitz to > prepare for this. We have been hearing lots of stories and reminders > about the need to reprogram (or upgrade) everything from FAX machines > to emergency phones in elevators. This was fairly interesting for WebTV, since the devices "learn" what patterns work by dialing the phone and watching what happens, using the CCMI data as a starting point. Of course, by this time all of the devices in Maryland had learned that 7-digit dialing worked great, which meant that we had to make the boxes un-learn that fact *before* May 1st. (After May 1st they'd have a hard time dialing in to be fixed. It's easy to straighten them out after the fact, but the goal was to keep things as seamless as possible.) Send UCE to consumerline@ftc.gov (Spam Bait) Send mail to fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) Fight Internet Spam - http://www.vix.com/spam/ and news.admin.net-abuse.email ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 09:53:00 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. Sovernet is an interesting rural ISP. They cover the entire state of Vermont with local call access, even though Vermont has only one city big enough to deserve the name (Burlington), lots of small rural exchanges, and very high intra-state toll rates. They've cobbled together a network of POPs colocated in local computer stores and the like, along with a lot of remote call forwarding between neighboring towns to maximize the local access to each POP. Their rates are the same as everyone else's, in the vicinity of $20/mo. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: nwdirect@netcom.com Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 01:05:41 GMT Stanley Cline (roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com) wrote: > Re: (rural Internet access) There are now several ISPs that provide flat-rate, unlimited access service for around $19.95 via an 800 number. There is now no reason why everyone with a U.S. phone cannot have reasonably priced access. * Internet Access Providers - Web Presense Providers - BBSes * * http://www.thedirectory.org/ - largest directory on the web * * tens of thousands of listings - over 7,500 Access Providers * * Telephone Prefix Locations - "The BBS Corner" - Web Banner Creation * ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Carte Blanche to Steal Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 18:39:31 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises Judith Oppenheimer wrote in article ... > FCC grants carriers carte blanche to steal what they've been buying. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You have illustrated a good point > Judith; just one more reason to let the big players do their own thing > and take your telecom needs to smaller companies who appreciate your > business. PAT] Unfortunately, Pat (and Judith) it is not always that simple. From personal experience, and that of close associates, I can tell you that AT&T (and sometimes Sprint) does not relinquish an 800/888 toll-free customer easily. I have had customers take up to a WEEK to provision from AT&T to another, smaller carrier (IXC, WilTel, LDDS, etc.), due to AT&T not processing the resporg paperwork upon receipt. They will stall, accumulating more receipts, and 'investigate why the paperwork has not been processed', before finally releasing the customer. In all cases, save one, the customers were current on their payable (in the one case the customer was 5 days late due to an accounting error). Judith, perhaps you can shed some light on this practice...? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be good to hear what Judith has to say on this. Are you sure however that the stalling is due to thier imminent loss of the customer or is it just their nature -- as I suspect -- to stall and fumble around when processing any sort of order slightly more complicated than turning on routine long distance service? Taking a week to get something done is nothing new for those guys; sometimes it takes two or three weeks or longer to get the service turned on in the first place; a time when you would think they were anxious to please and placate a new customer. Also, as far as the status of an account is concerned and whether the payments are up to date, is that a valid reason to refuse to release a number? I had heard at one point some discussion that carriers would be able to refuse on that basis, but I was not aware of anything formal on the topic. Judith, speak up! PAT] ------------------------------ From: mwcoen@hooked.net (Michael W. Coen) Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging? Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 18:16:50 GMT Organization: Whole Earth Networks News David Holub, CEO of Wenet/Hooked (www.wenet.net) was fired and there is tremendous discussion going on in the Well (www.well.com) and the Hooked proprietary newsgroups. Mr. Holub's handling of the UUNET negotiations were at odds with major shareholder Bruce Katz. Mr. Holub wanted to testify before the California PUC about the enormity of the issue UUNET is forcing. The peering agreements ISP's have with UUNET will be terminated over the next few months and ISP's must sign non-disclosure statements if they even wish to negotiate with UUNET. Many, if not all, small ISP's may be shuttered as they cannot afford the cost of peering agreements. UUNET is wholly-owned by Worldcom (www.worldcom.com). Even the Federal government will be forced to pay hefty fees for internet connectivity. Write your US Senator and ask for an investigation into Peering Agreements with UUNET and Worldcom. Here is a Yahoo listing of US Senators: http://www.yahoo.com/Government/Legislative_Branch/Senate/Senators/ Mike www.hooked.net/~mwcoen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I cannot resist the temptation: Isn't it interesting that all the Yahoos are listed on Yahoo. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:03:23 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! How Many??? Thought you might enjoy this... Forwarded message: From: Just4Laughs@usa.net (Just 4 Laughs) Reply-to: Just4Laughs@usa.net To: Just4Laughs@usa.net Date: 97-05-02 22:34:50 EDT This, from Sandi Woodard and Jennifer-Ann Anderson, has run quite a bit on the Net, but we're running here for the benefit of those who haven't seen it yet ... Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to effect the changing of a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers. 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb. 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs. 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. ------------------------------------------------ Just 4 Laughs! FREE Humor To Your E-mail! About 4 e-mails per day, most every day. If you would like to receive Just 4 Laughs! Send an e-mail message to me or go to the Web site. Just4Laughs@USA.Net GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ~~~~~~~~~~ Do you need another e-mail account? Go to the Just 4 Laughs Home Page, because there is a list of FREE e-mail programs. GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #111 ******************************