Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA28904; Fri, 30 May 1997 02:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 02:04:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705300604.CAA28904@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #139 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 May 97 02:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 139 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Clinton: President backs "Internet V-chip" (Monty Solomon) Bandwidth is a Replacement For Switching. Shannon? (Dave Penkler) Telecom Distance Education-Help? (R. Marklund) Re: Need Help Dealing With Ameritech (David Richards) Re: Warning: Scam Alert (Hillary Gorman) Re: AT&T/SBC Merger (Lars Poulsen) Systems Rated: Your Opinions, Please? (Bob Khan) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 00:40:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Clinton: President Backs "Internet V-chip" Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 11:58:35 -0800 From: --Todd Lappin-- Subject: CLINTON: President backs "Internet V-chip" THE CDA DISASTER NETWORK May 29, 1997 After a long (and glaring) silence on the issue, President Clinton *may* be backing away from his earlier support of the Internet censorship provisions contained within the Communications Decency Act. Or so it seems. Between the President's recent, off-the-cuff policy statement of support for a "V-chip for the Internet" and the muddled attempts at follow-up clarification offered by his staff, it's clear that the White House is still trying to get a handle on how the Internet works, and what can be done to shield children from inappropriate material in cyberspace. Are these statements an encouraging sign? Perhaps ... but based on the transcripts that follow below, it's not clear that the White House has much interest in defending free speech on the Internet. The devil is always in the details, and it's obvious the Clinton administration still has a long way to go before they get all the details nailed down. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision on the CDA sometime within the next five weeks. How will the White House respond if the CDA is overturned? We'll just have to wait and see. Work the network! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ------------------------------ From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/4148.html Give Him a V! by Wired News Staff 9:05am 29.May.97.PDT Last Friday, in a town hall meeting on education in Clarksburg, West Virginia, President Clinton made some news on the technology front. Answering a question from a parent about how to keep children safe on the Net, the president talked about the Communications Decency Act's travails in federal court. Then he said "we're working on" a technological fix, a V-chip for PCs that could protect children from harm. Later, reporters pressed White House aides on whether there was a new V-chip initiative. The new chip is out there, they said, somewhere "within the industry." FROM WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE EVENT AND LATER BRIEFINGS: Jim Eschenmann: Mr. President, my name is Jim Eschenmann. I'm a proud parent of a 4-year-old preschooler. Your administration, as well as the local board of education, has placed a large emphasis on connecting every classroom to the Internet. What additional measures can we take to protect our school students from the harmful areas of the Internet while guaranteeing full access to post-secondary students and to protect the freedom of speech? President Clinton: Well, you know, I signed a bill - when I signed the telecommunications bill I had a provision in there to try to protect against young people being exposed to some of the harmful things that are on the Internet. Not just pornography but, as I'm sure a lot of you know because of the events in the news in the last couple of years, there are even instructions on how to build bombs and things like that. There are lot of things on there that we wouldn't want our children to see. That provision has been thrown out by a court and is still in the courts, I think. So it may be that what we have to do is try to develop something like the equivalent of what we're developing for you for television, like the V-chip, where it's put in the hands of the parents or the educators. And then if it were in the hands of the educators the school board could approve certain guidelines. It's technically more difficult with the Internet. As you know, there are hundreds of new services being added to the Internet every week. It's growing at an explosive capacity and we're in the process actually of trying to develop an Internet II. But I think that is the answer. Something like the V-chip for televisions. And we're working on it. I think it's a serious potential problem myself. But let me say it would be a serious potential problem if they were not in the schools. I think putting them in the schools, because the kids are normally under supervision, you have a far less likelihood that the Internet will be abused or that the children will be exposed to something they shouldn't see during the school hours, in all likelihood, than at home. But I do think you need guidelines in both places and we're doing our best to try to figure out if there's some technological fix we can give you on it. BRIEFING BY SPOKESWOMAN ANN LEWIS (22 May): Q.: Three things that Clinton said - suggesting V-chips for the Internet, endorsing year-round schooling, and speaking favorably of high school competency tests before graduation. Are any of those new, or are those things he has said before? Ann Lewis: From my understanding, looking at the conversations back and forth on the V-chip for the Internet, as you know this is a principle the president has talked about for a long time, which is giving parents the tools they need, and it's the principle he referred to when he supported the - came out in support of the V-chip. He thinks it continues to be an issue. Second, if you go back and look at his speech on Net Day, when he gave a radio address and we did some talking about the Internet, he announced that he had asked the Department of Education and Secretary [Richard] Riley to come up with a parents' guide to the Internet, recognizing that it is a wonderful resource but that many families also feel they could use some help in ensuring that their children get the most out of the Internet. And, third, it's our understanding, and we just checked this with people at the White House who know much more about technology than all of us put together, that there is in fact technology being developed that would serve as the equivalent of a V-chip for the Internet, and we think that's what the president referred to. Q.: Clinton has talked before about giving parents ways to protect their children on the Internet, but has he ever before suggested the idea of a V-chip for the Internet? Lewis: Not that we know of, but we know - as is clear, I think, from his wording, he is aware that the technology has been developing. Q.: But has he talked about this before? Lewis: We don't think so. We were going to try to do a huge Nexis search; that's going to take a long time. We don't remember that conversation. Q.: You said the technology is being developed - who is developing it? Lewis: I can't, but we can get you more information. It's my understanding it's being developed within the industry. Q.: That's like the stuff like Kidsitter and all the stuff that's already available on the Internet. There are a lot of sites. Lewis: There are a lot of sort of monitors you can put on that. We think this may be a little more advanced, and we're trying to get more information. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY MIKE MCCURRY AND SPOKESPMAN BARRY TOIV (23 May): Q.: Mike, yesterday the president endorsed the idea of a V-chip for the Internet. Was that the first time he did that, and how does the White House plan to proceed? Mike McCurry: Did anyone work on that yesterday? That was - there is some, I think, R&D work, technical work that's being done to develop new software. I'm not sure where within the government they're doing it=8A. Q.: Mike, I'm still trying to figure out, was yesterday the first time the president endorsed a V-chip for the Internet? McCurry: Did you do any yesterday on the V-chip question? Barry [Toiv] may have handled this up in West Virginia yesterday. Barry Toiv: Well, I'm not sure I have more than you got yesterday from Ann Lewis. The president has not specifically mentioned the V-chip, but this is work that we've been doing because he's been concerned, obviously, about ways that parents can help - can protect their kids with regard to stuff that comes through on the Internet. Apparently, it's our understanding that technology does exist within the industry. It's being developed by the industry. And so I think the president was referring to that yesterday. Q.: Is there any procedure that - I mean, is it something that - is there any kind of official "endorsement" you expect? Toiv: Well, right now - not right at this moment, but it's something we're looking at. ### Copyright 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved. This transmission was brought to you by.... THE CDA DISASTER NETWORK The CDA Disaster Network is a moderated distribution list providing up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the Communications Decency Act. To SUBSCRIBE, send email to with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to with "unsubscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. WARNING: This is not a test! WARNING: This is not a drill! ------------------------------ From: Dave Penkler Subject: Bandwidth is a Replacement For Switching. Shannon? Date: 29 May 1997 10:43:40 +0200 Organization: Hewlett Packard GmbH Germany Reply-To: "dave@valhalla.com" Dear Pat, Thanks for posting the latest George Gilder article: "FIBER KEEPS ITS PROMISE". Gilder is always a stimulating read, although I can't help thinking that the man is so articulate that he could well pull off a highly plausible theory on the dynamics of egg prices in China: "PERFECTLY TRUE". I do however have a little question concerning Mr. Gilder's source for attributing "bandwidth is a replacement for switching" to Claude Shannon. Appended are excerpts of three of Mr. Gilder's earlier articles in which makes this attribution. I have scoured Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" in vain. So the question that I hope that you or one of your many readers can answer is: In which paper does Shannon state this equivalence and in what terms? Best Regards, Dave PENKLER --- THE BANDWIDTH TIDAL WAVE by George Gilder As the great pioneer of communications theory Claude Shannon wrote in 1948, bandwidth is a replacement for switching. FEASTING ON THE GIANT PEACH by George Gilder But what about switching, ask the critics of cable? Claude Shannon of MIT and Bell Labs, the inventor of information theory, had the answer in 1948: Bandwidth is a replacement for switching. GOLIATH AT BAY by George Gilder The logic of MIPS and bandwidth works both ways. Not only can processing make up for bandwidth, but bandwidth, as Claude Shannon pointed out in 1948, can serve as a substitute for switching and other computer functions. -- Dave PENKLER | E-Mail: Dave_Penkler@ph.com Telecom Systems Business Unit| Transpose p and h: ^^ Hewlett-Packard France | Telephone: +33 (0)4 7614 1446 5 av R. Chanas - Eybens | Fax: +33 (0)4 7614 5323 38053 Grenoble Cedex 09 | GSM: +33 (0)6 0715 0256 FRANCE | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of the several essays of Gilder in the Telecom Archives, I am not sure we have 'Feasting on the Giant Peach'. Since George is a regular reader and participant here, I will ask him to respond at this time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marklund@agt.net (R. Marklund) Subject: Telecom Distance Education-Help? Date: 30 May 1997 05:05:31 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. Reply-To: marklund@telusplanet.net I'm interested in obtaining a Master's level degree via distance education in Telecommunications or Data Communications (eg. Masters of Science in Telecommunications or Masters of Telecommunications). I have only been able to find one possible program so far at the U of Colorado in Boulder. Can anyone suggest such a program? Any recommendations? Thank you in advance! Would prefer responses via email directly. Ron Marklund, P.Eng. Red Deer, Alberta, Canada email: marklund@telusplanet.net ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: Need Help Dealing With Ameritech Date: 29 May 1997 03:30:57 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article JRA writes: > All this is tedius and annoying, but it generally works OK. However, I > have been totally unable to get anywhere on an increasing number of > complaints coming from Ameritech customers. The problem is that > apparently Ameritech's business office has been given strict orders > not to make any comments about the cost of a call (what band it's in, > timed/untimed, _anything_) about calls from Ameritech exchanges to > MFS/Intellinet exchanges. They say that calls to an exchange operated > by MFS are priced by MFS, and that Ameritech has nothing to do with > billing for the call. Of course, when I talk to MFS they say this is > insane: the originating carrier charges, if the call needs to be > charged at all. And only the originating carrier will know whether or > not the tariff says the call is timed. This is a known difficulty with Ameritech, and as a relatively tiny customer of MFS, we have even less clout with either vendor than you do. ... > I'm at wit's end. I need two answers, and I don't know where to look > for them. First, I need to know why it is that Ameritech is unwilling > to confirm what band a call is in, if and only if it's to an MFS > exchange. Second, I need to know, in general, how I can find out if a > call from an Ameritech exhcange to an MFS one is timed or not. > I'd be eternally grateful for whatever light you can shed on this issue. Ameritech's motives in this are easy to guess. On the plus side, MFS has been very good about providing their customers with lists of their "Rate Centers" including the city, TCG exchange, and the other Ameritech prefixes served from the same switching station as the TCG exchange -- that's what you need in order to determine the actual Ameritech rate for the call. 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: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Warning: Scam Alert Date: 29 May 1997 14:53:30 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , John R. Levine wrote: > This message was a 100% scam. The guy was trolling for credit card > numbers and, for people dumb enough to send him checks, cash. BUT ... CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) is real. Please check out http://www.cauce.org to see the text of Smith's anti-spam bill (an extension of the anti-junk-fax law) and to read up on their activities. No financial contributions are requested, but ideas are! Lots of clueful people are involved in this project. hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, CAUCE is real. I'm afraid that scam-artist gave them a bit of an undeserved black eye with his antics. Remember to keep the two separate. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:08:20 -0700 From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: AT&T/SBC merger A few of the comments have been critical of Reed Hundt's performance as FCC chairman. I must respectfully disagree. Unlike most of his predecessors in the office, Reed Hundt has been more of a visionary activist than a faceless lawyer. I have applauded his performance, not only because I share his and vice president Gore's belief that the modern telecommunications infrastructure, operated in managed competition is a vital national asset, but also because he has been a friend of the Internet, protecting the interests of the mostly small dynamic, often family-owned Internet service providers against the attempts of the larger telcos to manipulate tariffs to eliminate this upstart competition. Certainly, telcos have been critical of the regulatory oversight from chief Hundt and his commission. They have been disappointed that they could not badger Hundt into backing the corporate line that "more profitable telcos promotes investments that are good for the country", which they used so successfully to influence Congress to rewrite the Telecommunications Act to their liking behind closed doors. But Hundt protected the Internet Service Providers from being forced to pay per-minute access charges to receive phone calls. Hundt believed that there is such a thing as managing national resources for the public good (as distinct from maximizing corporate profits). Judge Harold Greene (who brokered the consent-decree in the AT&T anti-trust suit, and thereby created the new, competitive telephone system) was blasted by many in the industry as well as many political observers, who accused him of destroying the one true integrated system, but he had such a clear vision, and such a good understanding of the technology as well as the economics of the industry, that ultimately he succeeded in creating a new system, and he was such a stabilizing force, that there was no real need to rewrite the law, until his retirement was imminent; so too, I believe we shall ultimately remember Reed Hundt as Harold Greene's successor. As the Internet becomes a mainstream technology, it will need government regulation. Such regulation is needed to curb the junk e-mail problem, to broker reasonable interconnects (who pays settlements to whom), and to create an ordered domain name system to serve the USA. Such regulation must be implemented with an understanding of the technology and of the technical culture that has grown up around it, and which in itself an important resource. With Reed Hundt gone, I pray that his successor will be worthy of the task. Lars Poulsen lars@OSICOM.COM +1-805-562-3158 OSICOM Technologies (Internet Business Unit) (formerly RNS) 7402 Hollister Avenue Manager of Remote Access Engineering Goleta, CA 93117 Internets designed while you wait ------------------------------ From: Bob Khan Subject: Systems Rated: Your Opinions, Please? Date: 29 May 1997 16:37:18 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Reply-To: Khan I guess you'd call this a survey. I'm a salesrep for a small telephone systems retailer. We're not an "authorized" dealer of any company's equipment, preferring to keep our options open so that we can recomend the most appropriate system without worrying about meeting a quota. Our manager gives us tremendous discretion as to what systems we recommend to clients. I usually handle smaller businesses, looking for systems which can handle 2-12 CO lines and 4-32 stations. Typically I recommend AT&T Partners, Nortel CICS, and Toshiba DK16's. Just now looking into Panasonics. Also sold a few Prostars. In order to better serve my customers (and this should be beneficial to other independent retailers or dealers who are authorized on multiple systems), I'd appreicate any input on the advantages/disadvantages of various systems over others. For example, I've found the Partner is best for tiny businesses since I can install a single 206 module for starters, but the CICS is better for intermediate's due to the built-in auto attendant. Opinions based on EXPERIENCE, not company-issued hype, are obviously preferred. Anyone's comments are welcome: vendor, retailer, user, owner, etc. Finally, a simple ranking, based on cost/value would be appreicated. For example (and this is only as an example!): 1. Norstar 2. Toshiba 3. Panasonic 4. Prostar, etc. Thanks again for any input. Bob ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #139 ******************************