Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA06298; Thu, 22 May 1997 00:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:35:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705220435.AAA06298@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #128 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 May 97 00:35:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 128 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Book Review: "ISDN for Dummies" by Angell (David Richards) ISDN U Interface Wiring/Electrical Interface in Apartment (Eric Ewanco) Re: Net2Phone Worse than a COCOT! (John Cropper) Re: New Toll-Free Number Coming (John Cropper) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (P. Morgan) Re: Survey Says Almost All Americans Want to Censor the Net (Lou Coles) Re: Audio Monitoring When Phone is On Hook (Peter Corlett) Legal Recourse Against Spammers (Stan Brown) Congressman Wants to Ban Spam (Tad Cook) 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: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: Book Review: "ISDN for Dummies" by Angell Date: 22 May 1997 02:52:27 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Rob Slade wrote: > In chapter two, we are told the PRI (Primary Rate Interface, the large > economy size of ISDN) is beyond the scope of the book. Fair enough, > on a practical level, although conceptually rather odd. BRI (Basic > Rate Interface) is what most home or small office users will want. > But then why does Appendix B give us over forty pages of detail on > ISDN wiring and power guidelines? What's funny is that aside from wiring and power guidelines, PRI isn't very different from BRI. Perhaps the appendix is there just to make the book thicker. > This inconsistency of level is unfortunately typical of the book. The > introductory section explaining ISDN and its benefits is vague and > undependable. (Or even self-contradictory: we are told in one place > that ISDN lines are $15 a month, and fifteen pages later they are $50 > a month.) Yet chapters three and four, on the basic requirements for > service, equipment, and setup, are very good. Much of chapters five > through sixteen simply describe specific products. As usual, the > later chapters give company contact information. ISDN line charges vary widely from area to area -- $15-$50 is about the right range. The "benefits" and specific services included with ISDN is very different in different areas of the USA, and the USA as a whole is nothing like Europe. > Probably useful, but not altogether reliable. "ISDN for Dummies" is the kind of book that is worth reading once, but would be embarassing to have in your bookcase. David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three My opinions are my own, IRS withstanding Public Access in Chicago Proud to be the 5,000th least-important Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased usenet-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ From: Eric James Ewanco Subject: ISDN U Interface Wiring/Electrical Interface (High Rise Apartment) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 21:34:44 -0400 Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Summary: I need some assistance in doing the inside wiring for my new ISDN line which has just been almost fully installed) in a situation which is more complex than usual. Out of five unwired pairs of wires in my apartment junction box one pair (green/white-green) has 50.8 volts on it and I want to determine out if this is the correct pair. Details: I have placed an order for NYNEX ISDN. The telco tech made a surprise visit today to do inside premises wiring, and I was not home. He claimed in a note he needed access to the premises; I was surprised because I told them I would do my own inside wiring (and the apartment manager could have let him in). According to the apartment management he did everything but the inside wiring. I looked at the RJ-45 interface and saw why he might have sought access. I live in a high-rise apartment complex, and in my junction box there are six pairs of wires that come in the top and exit the bottom: blue/white-blue, orange/white-orange, green/white-green, brown/white-brown, red-blue/blue-red, and grey/white-grey. Only one pair was wired to the RJ-45, the blue pair to the red and green. One of the other five pairs was probably my ISDN line but who knows which. Two of the pairs were exposed (spliced?) The orange pair had a white crimp connector on each wire. The green pair was simply stripped. I attached a voltmeter to both (in the case of the orange it was more difficult but I am confident I made contact); the green pair had 50.8v on it. (I had only one line up to this point.) My POTS line had around 49v to it (on-hook). According to , this is either T568A color coding or T568B color coding. This document gives the typical mapping between the weird striped wires and the more typical quad cable (green, red, black, yellow, and in some white and blue). The white-green/green pair is assigned to "pair 3" which is white and blue; white-orange/orange is assigned to black and yellow (typically a second line). Also according to this document (and a previous post in comp.dcom.isdn) the U interface is not polarity sensitive so I don't have to worry there. So I think I've found the line. (I haven't checked the other three pairs because they are not stripped.) Can I be certain about this, or must I pay NYNEX big bucks to connect two wires? Does the voltage seem like ISDN voltage, or is it different enough from POTS to be distinguishable? Could I have found another apartment's phone line? (Seems doubtful; that's a security issue.) Obviously I cannot plug a POTS device into it because if it is "correct" it will likely damage my POTS device. It would be probably also imprudent to simply attach an ISDN device for similar reasons (I saw archived some discussion about problems here) but the point, now, is moot; I haven't received my TA yet so I have no ISDN equipment. Maybe a pot and a speaker. I have no oscilloscope, either (though perhaps I could borrow one). I'm going to try to contact the technician but he may not cooperate with me. Thanks, Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco Framingham, MA ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Net2Phone Worse than a COCOT! Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 22:33:07 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises Stanley Cline wrote: > Just because I had nothing to do, I downloaded IDT's Net2Phone > software (which allows calls to any *phone* over the internet.) They > say to try calling any 800/888 number "for free", so I was going to > try calling my own AT&T 500 number (via 1-800-CALL-ATT.) Guess what > -- it didn't work! > For some f***ing reason IDT has seen fit to BLOCK the Big Three's 800 > calling-card/collect/500 access numbers! Yet they say *any* 800/888 > number will work. Strangely enough, other MCI access numbers, and the > access numbers for other, smaller calling card providers [which I will > NOT disclose in the Digest, nor to IDT] were NOT blocked and went > through fine. The big joke is that IDT buys time on the same network as needed, just like everyone else ... why they block certain numbers is obviously something THEY will have to explain. > (This is horribly reminiscent of f***ing COCOTs, specifically some I > have repeatedly warned the FCC and Georgia PSC about -- that block ALL > 888 numbers PLUS CERTAIN 800 numbers. One calling card company, whose > 800 and 888 access numbers have been blocked by "The Right Stuff"'s > payphones, told me they're sending them a cease-and-desist order!) Yes, but the $64 question is: Does this form of communication fall under regulation? > I guess IDT is true sleaze, even worse than the worst COCOT owners -- > trying to pull stuff such as this. They run the same "plans", as the big three (with some minor variations in international rates), and a "bonus" if you use them as your primary ISP ... I didn't see any reference to them in DLD, though ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/ The latest compiled area code information is available from us! NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: New Toll-Free Number Coming Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 22:38:32 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises nwdirect@netcom.com wrote: > From Reuters > AT&T Corp. said it plans to introduce a new toll-free prefix in one > year to meet a growing demand for toll-free services. A year ago, AT&T > created an 888 toll-free code to supplement a dwindling supply of 800 > numbers. The company said those new numbers are being consumed so > quickly that it is working to create another pool of available numbers > using an 877 code. "Of 7.78 million available combinations, 7.71 > million, or 99.9%, are working, reserved or otherwise taken from the > pool of available numbers," AT&T said of the original batch of 800 > numbers. The next code, 877, is scheduled to be operational by April > 4, 1998. AT&T had very little to do in designating NPA 877 for domestic toll-free use (aside from the obvious wholesale consumption of available 800/888 resources), but does manage to twist a good story to Reuters! Wouldn't you agree, Pat? John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/ The latest compiled area code information is available from us! NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I read it, my first reaction was that AT&T had nothing at all to do with the creation of 877. But then, it may have been Reuters which made that leap to AT&T as creator based on some interview with the company otherwise. I really cannot imagine AT&T making that claim. PAT] ------------------------------ From: P Morgan Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 07:56:33 +0100 In message jfmezei wrote: > Furthermore, one must question how much it costs to rent a telephone > without service vs renting one with a local service package. Not all > rental shops at airports may be willing to rent you a telephone > without a sim card (service). Perhaps this will change, or perhaps > this is only isolated cases in certain countries. From the UK ... With so many of the phones being tied to a particular network, and the GSM networks here operating on two separate frequency allocations (900 MHz for Cellnet + Vodafone, 1800 MHz for Orange and one2one) I doubt that many non-UK SIM cards would work ... and you'd find the UK network operator has no agreement with your home SIM card issuer. The networks, as well as being on different frequencies, have had some different target users -- the lower freq ones offer more international roaming, and were originally offering only analogue calls at a time when a mobile phone was a businessman's perk or a yuppie gimmick. The higher freq aimed more at personal use, and have included airtime since day one (the lower freq charged for all calls originally). The higher freq also allow 0800/0500 (ie free calls) to be made free, but the lower freq networks still charge even for these calls. [ An exception is for calls to use a telephone card access number, as the mobile networks want the income from the international calls, and not the likes of AT&T, WorldCom, etc to get your call "free". ] Peter Morgan ------------------------------ From: loujon69@delphi.com (Lou Coles) Subject: Re: Survey Says Almost All Americans Want to Censor the Net Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:40:01 GMT Declan McCullagh said: > [Of course, I'd like to see another question asked: Do you think a Bible > Belt prosecutor should be able to threaten you with a prison sentence and a > $250,000 fine if you post offensive material on your web site? --Declan] Good point. > In a recent nationwide telephone survey of a random sample of > Americans ages 18 and older conducted by Chilton Research Services, 80 > percent of respondents answered "Yes" when asked, "Do you think that > the government should take steps to control access to pornographic or > sexually explicit material on the Internet to protect children and > teens under 18 years of age?" I'm sorry, but the question more or less insures a "Yes". I wonder what the response would have been to the subject, that is "Do you want the government to censor the Internet?" -Lou- ------------------------------ From: Peter Corlett Subject: Re: Audio Monitoring When Phone is On Hook Date: 20 May 1997 17:52:24 +0100 Organization: Metamedia (BABT is a large bureaucracy which is supposed to approve devices for connection to British Telecom's networks. If something is not approved, it is supposedly illegal to connect it. Approved equipment always has a green circle logo, unapproved equipment occasionally has a red triangle. It is very expensive to gain BABT approval, and so a lot of perfectly safe equipment is unapproved. These days, it would also appear that due to European law, just carrying a CE mark is sufficient, and usually a lot cheaper. Whilst interesting, CE marks are beyond the scope of this posting.) I'd be somewhat concerned if anybody actually tried the suggestion of the Moderator to just connect an amplified speaker directly to a telephone line without isolation. At least for British Telecom lines, there are dangerous voltages present, especially when the line is ringing, and there is little or no equipment loading the line. It's probably "safe enough" when not ringing, but how can you guarantee you won't be called? I recall being told by a friend about when he was working directly on his phone line, and was quite happily going about his business when his "assistant" dialled 175, a line diagnostic test, which happens to put funny voltages on the line to test the equipment, and then calls back with the result. What was said by my friend was most certainly unprintable. I've also found that directly connected circuits suffer from mains hum. I bought a telephone line recorder adaptor from Maplin (an electronics store), complete with BABT red triangle. When I plugged it in, I got a horrendous 50Hz buzz, with a faint hint of dialtone in the background. I opened the thing up to find a single resistor and two inadequate capacitors. I use one of two circuits, depending on application, to connect to the PSTN. They both employ a 600:600 ohm transformer, and I have a small cache of BABT approved units for this purpose. For a device that acts like a telephone, I connect the transformer, in series with a 600 ohm resistor, across the line. The other side of the transformer gives isolated audio - you can record off the line, or play into the line, or both at this point, or even connect it to another phone line as a divertor. The 600R is not absolutely required, it just allows extensions on the line to work. You would usually have a relay or switch on the line too, to be able to hang up. If you use a 6k resistor instead of a 600R one, you can not only monitor extensions, but you can also listen to the exchange when on-hook. British Telecom lines seem to have a quiet 1Hz click when idle, and on an incoming call, it gets a lot more active. If you have Caller Display, you will get various tones, followed by a blast of FSK, and finally, a 20Hz buzz, which is the ringing. In the USA, the sequence will be different. If you merely wish to record a telephone conversation, the circuit can be simplified by substituting a telephone for the 600R resistor. It would appear, however that if you use a tape recorder with a high-impedence input, and poor RF rejection, you will sometimes pick up your favourite radio station too. Although I quite like listening to Radio 4, I can't say I'm too happy at listening to it on the telephone ... \/ Peter Corlett, Birmingham, England Finally dumped Demon, went to DirCon http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~strowger/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Moderator did not say to just attach an amplified speaker to the line without isolation. I think what I said was to add a little something to the line, i.e. capacitors and/or resistors so that the central office would not detect you being there, nor would the spied-upon subscriber. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 00:17:53 EDT From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) In TELECOM Digest 17:124, our Esteemed Moderator wrote: > The time has come for the community to begin taking a very agressive > stance on spam. We need to begin demanding that there be enforcement > of the laws and at the same time use our own attornies to begin > litigation. PAT] I agree with PAT's sentiments. However, before laws can be enforced they must be passed. The preponderance of legal opinion on the Net is that the current law does not cover junk emails or Usenet spam. There have been claims (notably in misc.legal.moderated, which I read, and its unmoderated brethren, which I don't read) to stretch the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's prohibition of junk fax to junk email. But the better-reasoned opinions published there have shown that such attempts are not adequate. (I have no formal legal training. But the "not covered" arguments seem more self consistent to me, and the "is covered" arguments seem to rely more on rhetoric and wishful thinking. Ultimately, what matters is a court decision; but none has yet been handed down. In fact, as far as I know there has never been a junk-email court case relying on the TCPA's junk-fax provisions.) One easy argument: the TCPA requires that any fax transmission include the phone number of the sending machine. If junk email is to fall into the junk-fax category based on the TCPA, then every email is subject to that requirement. Since hardly any emails include the sender's phone number, that would make virtually all present-day emails illegal, an absurd result. You can read further details in Mark Eckenwiler's article at http://www.panix.com/~eck/junkmail.html I agree that email spam is execrable, and I think it does great harm to the Net. But before the Federal government can get involved, legislation is needed to make junk emails illegal. I think the prospects for such legislation are fairly good, because the junk emailers are nowhere near as well organized (yet) as the junk snail-mailers. But all of us who hate spam and complain about it need to put a modicum of that energy into writing to our representatives in our respective national capitals to demand legislation. (A problem left as an exercise for the reader is what to do about offshore spam-mailers.) Another approach, one that does not require legislation, is to use the law of contracts and/or the law of torts. Civil actions are initiated by private parties and need not wait for the government to act. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think suits for the tort of denial of service might have a fair shot. The law of contracts would come in if all of us would offer a high-priced service, acceptance of which was indicated by the sending of junk email. (See my signature line for an example. No, I've not yet collected a cent that way.) I could see some smart attorneys (*) filing a class action against AGIS, Earthlink, and other spam-friendly ISPs. (*) The plural is "attorneys" not "attornies", PAT, for the same reason that it's "turkeys" not "turkies". See the American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, or Fowler's Modern English Usage at "plural anomalies". Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems Cleveland, Ohio mailto:stanbrown@geocities.com USA http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1791/ USD500.00 charge for proofreading unsolicited commercial emails. ------------------------------ Subject: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:51:12 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U.S. congressman wants ban on junk e-mail "spam" WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A U.S. congressman Wednesday proposed a ban on "spam", unsolicited junk electronic mail that he said was clogging up the online baskets of internet users across the country. New Jersey Republican Chris Smith said his "Netizens Protection Act of 1997" would ban unsolicited commercial e-mail including get-rich-quick schemes, unproven medical remedies and similar solicitations that can cost recipients money by incurring online charges. "This bill will help people not only with the nuisance of spam but the costs as well," Smith said. He said that anyone who chose to get the "spam" could still do so under his bill, which would in effect be an extension of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act banning unsolicited junk faxes. The bill would not affect e-mail sent by friends and existing business associates. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #128 ******************************