Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA05648; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704281310.JAA05648@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #104 TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Apr 97 09:10:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" (Rob Slade) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (John R. Covert) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (David Smith) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Karim Alim) Cellular Problem Dialing More Than 10 Digits (Jon Solomon) NPAs in Jeopardy Situation (BBethea505@aol.com) Cell Phone Cancer Study (Stewart Fist) Share the Wealth (ya) (Steven Lichter) Incredible Chutzpah (Andy Sherman) 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: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 09:47:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" BKWDGTSM.RVW 961219 "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music", Anthony Helmstetter/Ron Simpson, 1996, 1-883577-95-0, U$39.99/C$55.99 %A Anthony Helmstetter %A Ron Simpson %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-883577-95-0 %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$55.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 %P 336 %T "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" Even if you present it in thorough detail, as the authors do, telling people how to add a sound link to a Web page only takes a small chapter. What this book does, then, is to give those who don't have a background in the technology of music on the computer a thorough overview of music and sound development. This ranges from simple capture of sound clips through editing and all the way up to recording at professional studios. For those already into the audio aspect of computer multimedia this will be a very simple text, but for the majority of Web developers it provides a guide to all aspects. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWDGTSM.RVW 961219 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun 27 Apr 97 15:12:06 EDT Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming From: John R. Covert First I'd like to correct an error in my previous message. The Motorola International 8800 is dual-mode 900/1800 MHz with the intention of giving European 1800 MHz customers the ability to roam on 900MHz. I'm not sure why I had thought it was 1900MHz/900MHz. Wishful thinking and late-night surfing, I suppose. Tri-mode phones are hoped to appear by next year. In reply to my message, nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had written: > Yes indeed. Also, while in a GSM country, call somebody with caller ID, > in-country. Normally, your VODAPHONE number will show up on the callers id > display. People can now call you on this number. That would indeed tell us a little more about how the AT&T/Vodaphone SIMcard hack works. In the case of a real international SIMcard, at least in the case of my New York SIMcard, calls within the UK showed up last week as "number withheld". I should have stuck the D1 card I had with me into the phone and checked that out. With a real SIM card, you really don't have a number within the country in which you're roaming; it's not needed at all for outgoing, and the temporary number used to route incoming calls to you can be released for reuse by someone else as soon as call setup has completed. > Why didn't the US carriers (including CDMA) use the same compatible SIM > technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! Utter stupidity, I must say. The only benefit of not using SIM cards is that it makes the phone slightly cheaper; the cost of the SIM card slot mechanical and electrical interface probably adds about $20 to the cost of the phone; well worth it in my opinion. And Hugh A. Pritchard wrote: > I've had GSM/SIM card service from Sprint Spectrum (APC) since the > beginning of the calendar year, here in the Washington-Baltimore area. > I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North > American market has anybody using GSM. Not true. You can roam in NYC on my carrier, Omnipoint. See your carrier's web site at www.sprintspectrum-apc.com. Warning: if you forget the "-apc" you'll end up at the SprintPCS site, a completely different non-GSM system. Omnipoint seems to be the clear leader in setting up roaming; if I had a 1900 MHz phone, my Omnipoint card would let me roam in DC, in the Carolinas with BellSouth Mobility, in Honolulu, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas and Portland with VoiceStream, in SFO/LAX/SanDiego with Pacific Bell, and in Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec City with Microcell. These are all fully active roaming agreements. See www.omnipoint.com. And as I mentioned, they are the only real GSM carrier so far to have any overseas agreements; yesterday they added Sweden to their list which previously included the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. > GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly has never > been cloned. And, in fact, with the SIMcard encryption technology, should never be able to be cloned without a lot more computing than could possibly be economical to bother with. /john ------------------------------ From: dsmith@tiger.co.uk (David Smith) Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming, and North American Mobile Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 03:02:14 GMT Organization: Tiger Co. nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) wrote: > Why didn't the US carriers (inlcluding CDMA) use the same compatible SIM > technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! The US GSM-1900 uses the same compatible SIM technology. ------------------------------ From: Karim Alim Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 02:37:58 -0400 Hugh Pritchard wrote in V17, #103: > I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North > American market has anybody using GSM. That's OK, because Sprint > Spectrum's GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly > has never been cloned. Actually, as of early April, Omnipoint in the Metropolitan New York area now provides service for Sprint Spectrum-APC users roaming from the Washington-Baltimore area. See http://www.celltalk.com/features/news/97/apr/02:040297002.html for more details including links to coverage maps and pricing. Oh, and I think you are right about GSM being unclonable, but if it ever DOES happen, it will probably be when you're in Manhattan. :^) -k. ------------------------------ From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (Jon Solomon) Subject: Cellular Problem Dialing More Than 10 Digits Date: Sun, 27 Apr 97 17:51:14 EDT I note that both of the cellular companies here in CT don't let you dial more than 10 or 11 digits to complete a call ... E.g. Dialing 1-800-TERMINIX fails, while 1-800-TERMINI succeeds. I reported it to both Bell Atlantic NYNEX and to SNET Linx. jsol ------------------------------ From: BBethea505@aol.com (Brian Bethea) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:28:18 EDT Subject: NPAs in Jeopardy Situation I recently bcame curious of the number of NPAs currently in jeopardy of exhaust before relief can be provided (split/overlay): This is what I found from cruising Bellcore's website (without ordering IL's at $10 each!) CODE State/Prov. Declaration Relief Plans 310.............CA.................1994........................Split with 562 now in permissive. 617.............MA.................1995........................No relief here until 1998, will split with 781. 415.............CA.................1996........................Split with 650, late summer '97. 619.............CA.................1996........................Split with 760 now in permissive. 412.............PA.................1996........................Was to be overlay (05/97). In review by PUC. 201.............NJ..................1996........................Split with 973 510.............CA.................1996........................Split with 925, 1998. 714.............CA.................1996........................Split with 949, 1998. 212.............NY.................1996........................Overlay (??) in early 1998. New code is 646. 817.............TX..................1996........................Split with 254 & 940, May 1997. 414.............WI.................1996........................Split with 920, early summer '97. 210.............TX..................1996........................Split with 830 & 956, July '97. 508.............MA.................1996.......................Split with 978, early '98. 501.............AR.................1997........................Split with 870 now in permissive. 405.............OK.................1997........................No definites on relief. 215.............PA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 717.............PA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 403.............AB.................1997........................No definites on relief. 770.............GA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 614.............OH.................1997........................Split with 740, late '97. 972.............TX..................1997........................No definites on relief. Just left permissive last week! 816.............MO................1997........................Split with ???, late '97. I find it very interesting that the industry and the local telcos in each of these areas have drug their feet so long in planning. (I realize that state PUCs often muddle the process.) Even so, relief plans should begin as soon as the code level goes above 50%. Also, mandatory dialing should begin as far ahead of the exhaust date as possible, not merely a few days/weeks. Of course, with the use of overlays these problems could be avoided for the most part. I'll not go into that song and dance again. I think there have been a couple split vs. overlay threads recently. Bryan Bethea Market Designation Team Leader Touch 1 Communications ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:01:23 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Cell Phone Cancer Study 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. The study looked at 200 mice, half exposed and half not, to pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan Harris and statistician Val Gebski, and it revealed a highly-significant doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power-density roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two half-hour periods each day; this was pulsed transmission as from a handset, not the steady transmission of a cell-phone tower. A significant increase in B-cell lymphomas was evident early in the experiment, but the incidence continued to rise over the 18 months. The implications of the B-cell (rather than the normal T-cell) lymphomas here, is that B-cell effects are implicated in roughly 85 percent of all cancers. The experiment was conducted as a blind trial, using absolutely identical equipment and conditions for two groups of 100 mice. The only difference between handling the two groups was that the power to one antenna was never switched on. Over the 18 months, the exposed mice had 2.4-times the tumour rate of the unexposed - but this was later corrected downwards to a more confident 2-times claim to remove other possible influences. 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." In fact, until late 1996, most governments and all cell-phone companies have been claiming that the safety of their product has been proved - and that the only possible biological effect of radio frequency transmission is localised body heating. The conduct of this experiment actually raises questions more about the potential for cell-phone hanset radiation to effect people nearby (passive exposures) than just the user him/herself. The experiment was conducted in the 'far field', at distances greater from the mice than the cell-phone is normally held from the head. Near-field biological effects in EMF effects are thought to be sustantially different from far-field, although the biomedical implications are not clear. Also, in close proximity, most of the energy transfers from the handset to the head by induction rather than just radiation, and this can raise the energy transfer by a factor of four. The study therefore under-rates the potential power effects on the handset user, while over-rating those for people nearby. The Adelaide study has been held back from publication for over two years while the B-cell implications were checked at a laboratory in Maryland, USA. Under their contract with Telstra, those involved in the study were prohibited from discussing their findings until after publication. Increased tumours began to be recorded after about 9 months. It is important to note that these were transgenic mice, specially bred to be susceptible to cancers of the immune system. However susceptible mice are commonly used in these studies as 'proxies', since cancer-causing effects are believed to be cumulative at the cell level. The total exposure period is very much less than can be expected from human use over a lifetime, so while one of the scientists downplayed the importance, saying, "humans are not rodents" another pointed out that "DNA is DNA". Every attempt appears to have been made to hose down the significance of this report, however the importance of the finding will not be lost on the international scientific community. This research now places Australia at the fore-front of EMF-health research, and it demands a series of follow-up studies to investigate dose-related responses and near-field effects. An expensive video-conference is being mounted on Wednesday by Telstra in Adelaide to officially release the report, with Dr Michael Repacholi speaking from Geneva. He has been prominent crusader on the side of "cell-phones are safe" lobby for many years. However, none of the technical or medical press involved in this debate have been invited to Adelaide conference. The official press release issued by the chairman of the scientific committee, Professor Tony Basten of Sydney University, also leads with gentle fire-extinguisher statement that "In our opinion the findings are valid for this genetically-engineered mouse model, but they must be put in context. Mice and humans absorb energy from these fields differently so we cannot conclude from this single study that humans have an increased risk of cancer from the use of digital mobile phones. More focussed research needs to be done to resolve that issue" I couldn't agree more on the last point, but nothing done in the last few years with the exception of the Drs. Lai-Singh work in Seattle has more obviously established that cell-phone safety has not yet been proved. There has been evidence accumulating over many years that the long-term effects of radio-frequency exposures may have serious consequences for a small percent of the population, but this has been ignored by the industry and by governments. The fact that Prof. Tony Basten concluded his release with the statement "For the time being, at least, I see no scientific reason to stop using my own mobile phone," is largely irrelevant. At his age and in his occupation, the potential dangers from increased phone use are probably minimal. The question is, would he buy his teenage child one? SIDEBAR This report follows two other fierce brush-fire in the cell-phone industry. The first was generated last year when Dr Henry Lai and Dr Singh at Washington State University reported enormous increases in double-strand DNA breaks in rat-brain tissue following microwave exposures of only two hours. The industry largely ignored these findings claiming that the frequencies used were not identical to cell-phones. In addition, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group in the USA, which is funded by the cell-phone industry has become embroiled in a number of scandals. The WTR was promoted to the public and to the US Government as being an 'independent' and 'arms-length' body controlling $25 million in research funding. Recent leaked documents show that it has been under the direct control of the industry association, and it has long operated as a PR front. In the last four years it has spent $17 million "without wetting a test-tube, " according to Microwave News editor, Louis Slessin. Following the tobacco industry's problems, the WTR scientists recently went on strike for nearly a year, refusing to perform their contracted research until adequately covered for indemnity against law suits by the cellular phone industry association. Last week, the WTR was finally paid US$938,000 to fund indeminity insurance coverage. The US scientists' sensitivity to this issue follows the filing of thirty-eight cases which are now before the courts over past tobacco-safety studies. Both the tobacco company lawyers and the scientists they funded have been charged as co-conspirators with the Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies in suppressing evidence and manipulating research results. END ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sleight of hand comes while you are reading their lips! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter) Subject: Share the Wealth (ya) Date: 26 Apr 1997 13:25:06 -0700 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company Here is an 888 number that I got in junk E-mail. I'm sure all of you would like to call it to find out how you can share the wealth. Besure to tell them that your sponser is SH3333777, so that he may get all the credit. Besure to leave all the information requested or he will never know. The number is 888-324-3245. Remember not to abuse that number and you should really call from a pay phone or large PABX. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ From: asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 27 Apr 1997 08:40:34 -0400 Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. 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. 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 whomever) would be that person's PIC. According to the story, the Florida PSC has delayed action on the application while it searches for the statutory authority to say no. [Pause] 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?" Anybody heard what the final PSC action was on this? Andy Sherman 3 World Financial Center, NYC, 11th Flr VP, Business Continuity (212) 526-4641 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com "Never use a scalpel if a machete will do the job." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There have been previous reports a few months ago in this Digest about the company which made up those names, since they have applied in other states as well, where they have had mixed results (turned down in a few, accepted in a couple). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #104 ******************************